Metaphysics is a popular specialty in philosophy departments.

When I take a stroll in the woods or browse through a market or watch people passing by, I observe, but what would make that science?

I would call your observations as being contemplation, but if it led on to explanations which were not based on scientific methods it would either be observations. But, if it was developed to a specific view or theory, then it would be metaphysical speculation.

Will you give a definition of metaphysics?

The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systemic account of all reality and experience, usually involving an epistemology, an ontology, an ethics and an aesthetics. — Jack Cummins

In the twentieth first century, I am wondering how much further is philosophy going in the elimination of metaphysics. This is in relation to the emphasis on the importance of understanding of language as being essential to philosophical analysis. However, there is more and more focus upon science as a source of 'truth'. It could be that philosophy is becoming more a matter of critical thinking in terms of understanding concepts and the empirical understanding through science, with reflection on personal values. — Jack Cummins

Good set up for the thread, as long as we can stay away from going down the swirling drain of arguing about the meaning of "metaphysics" and so avoiding any substantive discussion. I like that you gave us a reasonable definition to work with.

This has nothing to do with Plato, Aristotle, Kant or any of the others. I'm about as far from those guys as you can get in philosophy but even I know it is impossible to get rid of metaphysics. You might pretend that you have, even believe it yourself, but it can't be done. Metaphysics, especially including epistemology, is the foundation of reason. It's the rules that describe how it works. Science is science, but the scientific method, how science is done, what makes science scientific, is epistemology. The idea of objective reality is ontology. So is the idea of the Tao. So is truth.

Define truth, knowledge, logic. Those definitions are metaphysics.

Will you give a definition of metaphysics? — Jackson

The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systemic account of all reality and experience, usually involving an epistemology, an ontology, an ethics and an aesthetics. — Jack Cummins

The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview — Jack Cummins

I would not agree it is speculative.

Yes, I am aware of your thread. It may be some discussion of what metaphysics is inevitable in d
but I am intending it to be more of looking at the way in which metaphysics may still be important. I do read the thinkers which I referred to. Recently, I have been reading Schopenhauer and do find his ideas on the way in which Kant's idea of the thing in itself can be about human will, or consciousness. It is a form of demystification

But, yes, the issue of 'truth' is a wider one, especially the division between objective, subjective and intersubjective aspects. I am aware that you have your own thread on the Tao de Ching, which is a text which I have not read still. However, I do see the value of Eastern metaphysics generally. In particular, I find some Eastern ideas on the body and mind useful. That is because there is less emphasis on mind as brain but more of an appreciation of the idea of the 'subtle body', which may be about the limbic system.

It may be that the understanding of reality, in commonsense or philosophy appears to be a fairly accurate picture. However, it is still about constructing models, which may have to be altered on the basis of new 'facts'. In that sense, all knowledge, including science is still speculative to some extent, because aspects of it may have to be revised or attuned to further details.

I do read the thinkers which I referred to. Recently, I have been reading Schopenhauer and do find his ideas on the way in which Kant's idea of the thing in itself can be about human will, or consciousness. It is a form of demystification — Jack Cummins

I didn't mean that as a criticism of those thinkers. I just wanted to emphasize that metaphysics isn't old fashioned and hasn't been superceded.

I am aware that you have your own thread on the Tao de Ching, which is a text which I have not read still. However, I do see the value of Eastern metaphysics generally. In particular, I find some Eastern ideas on the body and mind useful. — Jack Cummins

I see my interest in Taoism as a reflection of my interest in metaphysics, epistemology in particular. Knowing, knowing how I know, and knowing how certain I am are right at the center of my intellectual world.

Understanding perfect math, which is different from ordinary math, yet you will call me insane so, no, I won't show you this math. A clue is;
.
Think about how you look at something and it is from 1 side; so the something you look at more than 1 in total. As you can see, to me, the something is 1, it's personal way! Yet in an impersonal situation everything is always above 1.
If you can name something that doesn't have more than 1 features then I lose, it's just that when a person exists and had.any features- his being is all of this. To call him 1 is a insult, to think 1 in mind isn't.

Well. If you get rid of metaphysics, you will also need to get rid of epistemology. Epistemology has to be about something, and if you remove the world, then you are merely left with reason dealing with itself - if that's even conceivable.

But even this is problematic, because without a world, it is not at all obvious that one could tell apart what belongs to the world and what belongs to mind. So mind may not even develop.

If you get rid of epistemology, you get rid of philosophy: morality, aesthetics, etc.

But the positive take is rather extreme. They actually have a metaphysics, since they believe the world exists. So all there is, everything, is sense data. So all we deal with in the world is this, sense data.

There are few views as radical as this, not even Hume or Berkeley were as radical.

It may be that the understanding of reality, in commonsense or philosophy appears to be a fairly accurate picture. However, it is still about constructing models, which may have to be altered on the basis of new 'facts'. In that sense, all knowledge, including science is still speculative to some extent, because aspects of it may have to be revised or attuned to further details. — Jack Cummins

Then, "speculative" may not be the right word.

it is impossible to get rid of metaphysics. You might pretend that you have, even believe it yourself, but it can't be done. Metaphysics, especially including epistemology, is the foundation of reason. — Clarky

It certainly can’t be done if you hold onto concepts like epistemology and reason as the ground of philosophy. It is precisely such traditional notion a that have been put into question by contemporary philosophers.

It certainly can’t be done if you hold onto concepts like epistemology and reason as the ground of philosophy. It is precisely such traditional notion a that have been put into question by contemporary philosophers. — Joshs

Tell me how to get rid of epistemology. You say "Z." I say "How do you know Z." Or I say "Prove Z." Those are epistemological statements. If you say "Here's how I know Z," you are speaking epistemology. You can't get away from it.

Show me a philosophical argument that doesn't include reason. I have a strong interest in Taoism, a philosophy that focuses on personal experience. There's no way for us to talk about it without rules of discourse, i.e. reason. Rules of discourse are metaphysics. If you question whether reason has value, that's metaphysics.

Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

Since the "Enlightenment" era (Age of Reason, circa 1700) --- rejection of revered speculations by ancient religious & philosophical authorities, along with the emergence of pragmatic materialist Science as a dominant factor in modern civilization --- Metaphysics has been in danger of going the way of the Dodo : ex-stinky. But, as long as some humans still have provocative curiosity & un-fettered imagination & practice the "art" of Reason, contemplation of the Big Picture (e.g. Ontology -- Epistemology) will have a place in the "art" of Philosophy.

Plato was mostly concerned with metaphysical questions, but Aristotle had his own "enlightenment" phase, which rejected speculation beyond what is "Real" & Practical. In his encyclopedic book on contemporary knowledge of Nature (The Physics, circa 350BC), the first volume was concerned mainly with the material world of the five senses. Yet, in his second volume --- perhaps intended as a philosophical commentary on the technical details in volume one --- he dealt with many of the same broad general conjectures as Plato.

For example, in his theory of hylomorphism, he posited that real natural things were not simply the superficial stuff you see & touch (Matter), but included an invisible essence (Form or logical structure) that organized raw material into specific things with inherent traits. However, he denied the existence of general intangible disembodied ethereal eternal subjective ideal Platonic Forms, and insisted that only embodied (lower case) forms, in specific palpable corporal material space-time real objective Things, are meaningful and practical, hence subject to human manipulation.

Ironically, very little of his The Physics remains viable relative to modern Science, while the volume that later became known as The Metaphysics, is still fiercely debated by both philosophers and scientists. The terms of such debates typically hinge on Natural vs SuperNatural status, and Idealistic vs Pragmatic interpretations. So, it appears that speculations on more-than-meets-the-eye remain popular in certain circles, and unpopular in others. For example, New Age philosophies hold Metaphysics in high esteem. But Post-Renaissance philosophies, such as Physicalism & Logical Positivism despise such irrational lapses, and label them as "Romanticism", at best.

Consequently, many of the visceral disputes on this philosophical forum, quickly devolve into trench warfare, with each side taking shots at the enemy across a non-mans-land divide. A few of us though, try to make peace (Synthesis) by straddling the no-go zone (Meta-Physics), and get shot at from both Thesis and Anti-Thesis antipodes. The Dodo is dead, long live Meta-Physics! :wink:


Romanticism : 1.(noun) impractical romantic ideals and attitudes

Meta-Physics :
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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch. In her essay, 'A House of Theory' in the volume, ' Existentialism and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literarure.she explores the nature of such possible elimination. She says, 'In the past philosophers had invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they were facts concerning the nature of the mind and the world.' She points to the way in the which criticism of metaphysics proceeded on the basis of the ideas of Hume, Kant and Hegel. — Jack Cummins

Oh the irony!

And what does she think she's explaining this under? Metaphysics? You bet. She's not using science here, nor psychology. She's using metaphysics to argue for the elimination of....metaphysics!

Any skeptical arguments, any meta-criticism of metaphysics, any polemics on the nature of reality must necessarily use the very same tool that metaphysicians use.

I believe Aristotle never used the term "metaphysics." In the work by that name he refers to "first philosophy." A minor point perhaps, but indicates that metaphysics is no different in kind than politics, epistemology, or aesthetics.

Any skeptical arguments, any meta-criticism of metaphysics, any polemics on the nature of reality must necessarily use the very same tool that metaphysicians use. — L'éléphant

I never understood the fear of metaphysics.

Tell me how to get rid of epistemology. You say "Z." I say "How do you know Z." Or I say "Prove Z." Those are epistemological statements. If you say "Here's how I know Z," you are speaking epistemology. You can't get away from it. — Clarky

Epistemology deals with general rules, structures and categories of meaning. You don’t ‘ get rid of’ or ‘get away from’ such concepts, you deconstruct them by showing how the general always manifests itself as a unique and particular contextual sense. Epistemology covers over how meaning is actually formed and used.

Epistemology deals with general rules, structures and categories of meaning. — Joshs

Epistemology is about knowledge, not meaning. Are you saying they're the same thing? I don't understand how that's true.

You don’t ‘ get rid of’ or ‘get away from’ such concepts, you deconstruct them by showi f how the general always manifests itself as a unique and particular contextual sense. — Joshs

Here's the definition of "deconstruction" I got from the web:

A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings.

Discussing traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth is metaphysics. If you dump the old assumptions and come up with new ones, you haven't gotten rid of metaphysics. I'm a fan of R.G. Collingwood. In "An Essay on Metaphysics" he writes that our assumptions, what he calls "absolute presuppositions," are the essence of, the subject of, metaphysics.

In "An Essay on Metaphysics" he writes that our assumptions, what he calls "absolute presuppositions," are the essence of, the subject of, metaphysics. — Clarky

Yes, and that is what Aristotle meant by "first philosophy."

I don't think that Murdoch is saying that metaphysics should be eliminated necessarily. She is merely describing what she saw happening in the gradual developments of philosophy in previous centuries and in the twentieth century.

:up:

“Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of [The Metaphysical] because we still have faith in  grammar. — Twilight of the Idols

"Eliminate" grammar? – the web of conceptual (metaphoric) presuppositions of discursive reasoning? "Eliminate" rational attempts at speculatively making sense of (the) "Big Picture"? "Eliminate" Mythos from the dialectic (or dao) of Mythos & Logos (thereby eliminating dialectics (yinyang) as well)? :chin:

Suppose, instead, we explore an apophatic approach to metaphysics (i.e. categorically eliminating unreals) as an immanent alternative to the traditional / classical kataphatic metaphysics (i.e. categorically positing reals) of transcendence ...

Metaphysics and epistemology are so bound together that it would be hard to eliminate one without the other. Even those who make assumptions about science cannot help but use metaphysical assumptions. To some extent all human thinking involves a certain amount of metaphysics, including theism and atheism. Even Ayer thought that while metaphysics lead to tautologies he said that people were still likely to wonder about metaphysical aspects of existence.

With Wittgenstein, it was not so much a rejection of metaphysics as a critique of the nature of language and the limitations which it imposes on human understanding.

Metaphysics? It all depends on whether language is/isn't wholly/partly empirical in character.

:up:

I don't think that Murdoch is saying that metaphysics should be eliminated necessarily. She is merely describing what she saw happening in the gradual developments of philosophy in previous centuries and in the twentieth century. — Jack Cummins

So the statement below I mistook to mean that you've come across this idea from her writing, which is an argument for the elimination. If that isn't the case, and I haven't heard of Murdock until now, what idea of elimination do you find in her writing? Or is this your take? Is this your question?

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch — Jack Cummins

In the twentieth first century, I am wondering how much further is philosophy going in the elimination of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

When does metaphysical border on mystical? Eliminating metaphysics (which I consider impossible without severely crippling philosophy) would remove all the entertaining babble about quantum entanglement, for example.

You definitely capture the way in which in the progress of ideas there appears to be an ongoing progression towards reason and explanations. There is a big difference in the approach of Aristotle from Plato. When ideas of the past are read it is often with the acknowledgement that many writers didn't have the scientific knowledge which is known today, including Darwin's ideas on evolution and the ideas of modern physics.

I wonder if people who advocate for the elimination of metaphysics are only the physicalists. I am not sure if I have ever interacted with someone who is a complete idealist to know what they think. It is probably difficult to remain a complete idealist in this time in which the physical basis of life is so understood.

It may be that those who hold on to the philosophy of realism may see sensory reality as the complete picture, but they may be missing the phenomenological aspect of perception. The emotions and psychological aspects of understanding may play such a significant role. That is where the complexity of inner experience and 'out there reality' come in with the qualia conundrum. There appear to be underlying basis of perception but there is still a level of interpretation in evidence of the senses. Also, one's so called attempt to see reality objectively may gloss over blindspots.

I am not really convinced that metaphysics can be eliminated ever because there are always gaps and aspects of life which defy explanations. I am not sure that anyone can ever expect to be able to understand everything. But, even with so many facts at one's disposal imagination is needed to piece all the parts together. Perhaps, what is needed is more thorough metaphysics than in the past, or system builders with more synthetic understanding, in putting the many broken fragments of the past pictures together in a new way.