Category talk:Metaphysics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Meanings and definition

Following up on a discussion at Talk:Crystal power, and a distinction made in the Metaphysics article, what would folks think of seperating the philosophically metaphysical claims (that is, within traditional academic philosophy) from the new age meaning of metaphysics which are not recognized as metaphysics within academic circles? --TeaDrinker 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in making such a distinction.

That said: there's a difference between something being recognized as metaphysical and something being argued to be "nonmetaphysical". The former comes from a lack of interest in examining kooks, the latter from principled argument. Presuming the former gets us nowhere and is uninformative, but if you can find some scholarly consensus with respect to the latter, then it might provide motivation for further distinctions. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Following this line of reasoning further; could two subcategories be considered for this article: Metaphysics (Philosophy)... and Metaphysics (New Age)... to further subdivide the numerous titles in the Metaphysics cat? I can see that most of the listings will be placed under a Metaphysics (Philosophy) section.

In such a case that the Metaphysics cat was subdivided; would the Lizard King article, for example, be labelled Philosophy or New Age?Drakonicon 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The separation is a good idea; however, I could not support a category called Metaphysics (Philosophy). Rather, the new-age stuff should be moved to a new category, say: Metaphysics (New Age), and the philosophy left in this main category. Banno 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think splitting the category is a good idea: there doesn't seem to be any overlap between uses of the term 'metaphysics' in philosophy and in new age thought. I also agree with Banno that the split should be 'metaphysics' for the philosophy articles and 'metaphysics (new age)' for the new age articles, although I admit to professional bias. In answer to Drakonicon: Lizard King doesn't have anything to do with (the discipline of) philosophy, so it goes in new age if it needs a metaphysics tag at all. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that Lizard King would be part of the proposed Metaphysics (New Age) cat: I just was trying to draw the link between the Lizard King article and its placement in the Metaphysics cat. One reason might be because Morrison was reported by Danny Sugarman in No One Here Gets Out Alive, as having read Nietzsche and Aldous Huxley. Tenuous link, I know. Anyway, lets start making the Metaphysics (New Age) cat? I might have a go at it. There will be some doubling up of links between the Metaphysics cat and Metaphysics (New Age) cat initially. To make thpage an actual Category.. and not simply an Article.. I have no concrete idea, but here goes. Someone help me with the code to make it a Category, if that someone would be so kind! Metaphysics (New Age). Drakonicon 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that category was created correctly... --TeaDrinker 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant links

I believe that Postmodernism should be included here. Postmodern literature and art (especially, the way Derrida, and Foucault perform their 'work' is deeply literary and philosophical, often reaching into metaphysical abstractions of thought.Drakonicon 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but perhaps postmodernism should have its own page. After all it is a rather big issue Dawn Abend 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism is certainly an important issue, but I think calling it 'metaphysics' is stretching the notion to breaking point: metaphysics means a a lot more, and is a lot more specific, than just being literary and philosophical, or reaching into abstractions of thought. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)