What do you take metaphysics to be? — Manuel

Statements of first principles. How one thinks the universe as a whole is.

As to specific philosophers, I don't read in that topic anymore.

I think most people think there is only one correct way of seeing reality. It certainly seems that way here on the forum. — Clarky

Indeed. And ironically (or not) even those committed to perspectivism and the notion of there being no correct viewpoint - no totalizing metanarrative - seem to elevate this evaluative framework as somehow true, in itself a kind of totalizing metanarrative.

And ironically (or not) even those committed to perspectivism and the notion of there being no correct viewpoint - no totalizing metanarrative - seem to elevate this evaluative framework as somehow true, in itself a kind of totalizing metanarrative. — Tom Storm

It is similar to the problem of skepticism. Doubt does not lead to knowledge.

Indeed. And ironically (or not) even those committed to perspectivism and the notion of there being no correct viewpoint - no totalizing metanarrative - seem to elevate this evaluative framework as somehow true, in itself a kind of totalizing metanarrative. — Tom Storm

As I've said eleventy-seven times here on the forum, the best, most useful, way of seeing things is different depending on the situation. And that is absolutely true.

There are many branches of metaphysics not just the one. Perhaps some metaphysics as a philosophy of mathematical fundamentals done by mathematicians might be illustrative.

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. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what I have tried to do with my Enformationism worldview. It's based on the sciences of Quantum physics and Information theory, but it requires a Metaphysical approach to make sense of this new way of viewing the "uncanny valley" (e.g. spooky action a distance) of quantum-scale reality.

I doubt that Physicalists & Materialists are actually opposed to philosophical Metaphysics. Apparently, they don't see any practical difference between bible-based Catholic Scholastic Metaphysics and reason-based philosophical Ontology & Epistemology. Both ways of viewing the world attempt to observe reality from the outside --- a god-like perspective, which is unscientific. And they propose the existence of Universals & Generals & Ideals that exist only in a mental sense, and are not verifiable by empirical methods. So, if such ideas make sense to you, they must be taken for granted, not proven, except for logical consistency. :nerd:

PS__I attempt to repair the "broken fragments" of reductive science with the holistic glue of philosophy. Thesis (Metaphysical worldview) plus Anti-Thesis (Physical worldview) = Synthesis (Holistic worldview).

Uncanny Valley :
The horror in this movie comes from the suspense and the lack of information the audience has
https://nfhsraiderwire.com/showcase/2021/03/19/why-the-uncanny-valley-is-the-scariest-form-of-horror/

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

It is pleasing to hear you are reading Murdoch. I'm not as familiar with her work as with that of Anscombe, Foot and Midgley, something I have every intention of remedying.

Of course, Murdoch and her intellectual sisters outright rejected the premise of this thread. For them metaphysics was indispensable for the fundamental task of philosophy - working out what one ought to do. They are at least as responsible as any others for evicting Ayer's pompous rejection of metaphysics from philosophy.

So what do you suppose would be Murdoch's response to your titular question?

↪jgill

There are many branches of metaphysics not just the one. Perhaps some metaphysics as a philosophy of mathematical fundamentals done by mathematicians might be illustrative. — magritte

Of course there are. I've long considered infinitesimals metaphysical objects within mathematics. Transfinite set theory seems metaphysical to me. Like pornography, I know it when I see it.

It is pleasing to hear you are reading Murdoch — Banno

:snicker:

Like pornography, I know it when I see it. — jgill

Resident expert on porn! :snicker:

Entanglement itself is a physical, not a metaphysical, phenomenon. Metaphysics is how we look at things, not what we see. I have thought about what changes in metaphysics are required in order to deal with quantum mechanical phenomena. I don't know the answer. — Clarky

We do not see the entanglement of existence. It is a judgment about what the real looks like; a conceptualization about the whole of existence is metaphysical. Those concepts might be derived from empirical sciences, but if employed to describe what 'existence' itself is, they are put to metaphysical use.

I do get to see the possibility that ethics precedes metaphysics, in that one's ethical commitment se[em] now to determine one's metaphysics. They were of course always... entangled. — Tobias

:fire:

Metaphysics is how we look at things, not what we see. — Clarky

... how we look at (rationally conceive of) the totality of things ...

As I've said eleventy-seven times here on the forum, the best, most useful, way of seeing things is different depending on the situation. And that is absolutely true. — Clarky

:smirk:

Murdoch and her intellectual sisters outright rejected the premise of this thread. For them metaphysics was indispensable for the fundamental task of philosophy - working out what one ought to do. They are at least as responsible as any others for evicting Ayer's pompous rejection of metaphysics from philosophy. — Banno

In my case, (along with other thinkers) Murdoch & Foot really contributed to showing me my way out of the positivistic 'flybottle'.

I am not sure to what extent people think there is one way of seeing reality. Okay, to a large extent there is so much agreement about aspects of perception of reality. However, if it really comes down to it there may be subtle differences.

I am not trying to be awkward but speaking from critical incidents I am aware of. It is surprising how different people recall the series of events or the details. I am even aware of a burglary where there is a discrepancy as to whether the burglars wore masks or not. I wonder how discrepancies occur. In some cases, it may be about people not telling the truth but it may also be that people see what they expect to see, or that their thoughts interfere with perception of events.

I found Murdoch's writing really good. As far as I can see she was questioning the elimination more than answering it specifically. But, part of the reason I have some difficulty establishing her view entirely is that the volume , 'Existentialists and Mystics' is a compilation of essays, so it is about various ideas she had at different times, so it is a little disjointed, and some of it is more focused on literature than philosophy. This means that reading various essays involves trying to connect all of this. But, I will go back later today to the specific one which I quoted to see if there is any aspect which is worth including in this thread.

I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. — Jack Cummins

Right there is a problem. Kant pretty much still holds up to this day with his work COPR. If many of those writers say that I would say they are probably pandering to science rather than making any concerted effort to delineate between philosophy and science.

No. Existence is kind of an important concept for conscious beings. We cannot just sweep it under the carpet.

Of course existence is important and 'We cannot sweep it under the carpet'. But, it the various different ways of explaining it all are complicated. I would not wish to dismiss the importance of the major writers, including Kant. But, it is not as if all the philosophers like Hume and Schopenhauer agreed on everything. So, in the twentieth first century it is harder with so many divergent theories and ideas, especially science. Putting all of it together in one's thinking is difficult and it is likely that each person brings a certain amount of uniqueness in thinking or philosophy 'voice'. In that respect, each person is a metaphysician.

Hume, Kant and Hegel. — Jack Cummins

Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer — Jack Cummins

If it hasn't been said already, it might be important to note that Hume's and Kant's attacks on metaphysics have probably been the most important in the history of philosophy. To embrace these philosophers is not to embrace metaphysics (or, when it comes to Hume, "system building").

It did appear that Iris Murdoch was acknowledging Hume and Kant's criticism of metaphysics. So, it is probably important for those who criticize these, especially Kant, should be aware of how these had come a long way from earlier metaphysics.

It does seem that Kant has become rather unpopular, as if he came out of the stone age, but in his time, he was coming from such a critical position. Part of the issue with Kant's philosophy may be even though he did pay attention to empirical aspects of knowledge, may be that many query his a priori approach. Or, it may be his puritanical views about sex which contributed to the dismissal of his writings.

It does seem that Kant has become rather unpopular, — Jack Cummins

A lot of that is because he's very hard to understand, and it's a lot easier to dismiss him than to understand him. After all, he's a dead white male, there are plenty willing to write him off on that basis alone.

Positivism was built on the attempt to eliminate metaphysical discourse from philosophy. Unfortunately for them, the very criteria which they used to eliminate metaphysics was found to apply to positivism also. 'No metaphysics' turned out to be just bad metaphysics.

Metaphysics provides us with an approach to the unknown. It is essential to the growth and evolution of knowledge, and is therefore indispensable to philosophy, as the desire for knowledge. The scientific method, for example, relies on hypotheses which are derived through metaphysics.

Some people seem to believe that knowledge has reached its limits, that all there is to be known, is already known. These (know it all) people will see no use for metaphysics.

'No metaphysics' turned out to be just bad metaphysics. — Wayfarer

:up:

No one agrees on everything. Whoever is talking about getting rid of metaphysics is essentially talking about doing away with philosophy.

If everything is just physics then it is just physics. Metaphysics originally meant on the fringe of physics I believe. Science is not a doctrine.

By understanding that our understanding is necessarily limited (Kant) we come to understand something. The limitation is what sets the precedent for knowledge.

No metaphysical conception would equate to no knowledge or understanding of anything.

No one agrees on everything. Whoever is talking about getting rid of metaphysics is essentially talking about doing away with philosophy. — I like sushi

Agreed. Philosophy is about expanding the limits of our understanding. Almost by definition, this coincides with metaphysics. The most interesting questions have always been metaphysical.

Hume's and Kant's attacks on metaphysics have probably been the most important in the history of philosophy. To embrace these philosophers is not to embrace metaphysics (or, when it comes to Hume, "system building"). — Jamal

And yet , from the vantage of more recent generations of philosophers, Kant and Hume exemplify species
of metaphysical thinking. Husserl critiqued the metaphysics of Hume and Kant , and said that if his perspective is to be thought of as a metaphysics it is a very different sort of transcendental than that of Kant or Hume. Nietzsche claimed to be the first to transcend metaphysics, and that Schopenhauer was the last metaphysician (“…. At bottom, the last metaphysicians still seek in it true "reality," the "thing-in-itself" compared to which everything else is merely apparent.”). Heidegger called Nietzsche the last metaphysician. He advocated a thinking that overcomes metaphysics (“… in its decisive steps, which lead from truth as correctness to ek-sistent freedom, and from the latter to truth as concealing and as errancy, it accomplishes a change in the questioning that belongs to the overcoming of metaphysics.”) Derrida called his own approach quasi-transcendental, neither a metaphysics nor a rejection of metaphysics but a thinking on the margins of metaphysics. He said such a thinking, rather than the negation of metaphysics or it’s embrace , is the most rigorous stance we can take.

Agreed. Philosophy is about expanding the limits of our understanding. Almost by definition, this coincides with metaphysics. The most interesting questions have always been metaphysical. — Pantagruel

Why is expanding the limits of thinking metaphysical?

Think about the meaning of metaphysics - "beyond physics"

If the known represents our best understanding of what is going on, metaphysics represents our attempts to go beyond the limits of that knowledge in ways that analyticity doesn't compass. Expanding our understanding of the physical universe isn't metaphysical, because the new understanding doesn't change the fundamental nature of that understanding (except that quantum theory - e.g. the Cophenhagen interpretation - could be said to be metaphysical in that sense).

Compare that with Ervin Laszlo's work on the Akashic universe, which postulates dimensions of reality that in some sense transcend or supercede those within which we normally operate. Metaphysical.

'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.' — Jack Cummins

I agree. The basis of metaphysics is often emotion: the hidden fuel that drives philosophical conflict.

Philosophy without metaphysics might be philosophy without this driving force. I can imagine arriving at that point, but it wouldn't last for long.

f the known represents our best understanding of what is going on, metaphysics represents our attempts to go beyond the limits of that knowledge in ways that analyticity doesn't compass. Expanding our understanding of the physical universe isn't metaphysical, because the new understanding doesn't change the fundamental nature of that understanding (except that quantum theory - e.g. the Cophenhagen interpretation - could be said to be metaphysical in that sense). — Pantagruel

Do you think that the history of scientific progress is at the same time a history of metaphysical
progress? In other words , that each era of scientific theory embodies a metaphysical worldview that usually remains unarticulated by the scientists themselves but is nevertheless implicit in their thinking. This view of metaphysics would reveal it not as something ‘beyond’ physics or empirical science in general but as implicit within its thinking.

Funny how metaphysics never stays dead and buried.