Talk:Metaphysics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Socrates
Portal:Philosophy
 Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] 2007

This sentence:

Other philosophical traditions have very different conceptions such as "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Problems from those in the Western philosophical tradition; for example, Taoism and indeed, much of Eastern philosophy completely reject many of the most basic tenets of Aristotelian metaphysics, principles which have by now become almost completely internalized and beyond question in Western philosophy, though a number of dissidents from Aristotelian metaphysics have emerged in the west, such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Science of Logic.

must include an editorial error. Perhaps someone who understands the intent of the first part of the sentence will correct the sentence.

--jm

Text included in an earlier version:

Earlier, someone disagreed with the following paragraph and deleted it but failed to give a justification for the disagreement, therefore I presume they are unable to justify. Note that if you delete the following without a reasonable explanation I will put it back. Just because YOU think someone isn't a good source for metaphysics does not mean your argument is correct.

Robert A. Heinlein, in his book To Sail Beyond the Sunset has the main character, Maureen, state that the purpose of metaphysics is to ask questions:  Why are we here?   Where are we going after we die? (and so on), and that you are not allowed to answer the questions. Asking the questions is the point for metaphysics but answering them is not because once you answer them you cross the line into religion. He doesn't really say why but the answer as to 'why' is obvious: because any answer is an opinion. It may be a good opinion, or a bad one, but it's only what the person who wrote the opinion believes. Such opinions cannot be validated, e.g. you can't ask the person to show you what it's like after death or provide for a personal audience with to their God or gods.

Larry deleted the above the first time, this time I'm deleting it and I'll attempt to justify. First of all, I don't give a damn about authority or credentials either. I quoted Churchill in an article on subjectivism and he's not known as a philosopher either. I also happen to like Heinlein a lot; The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the best work on politics around. The paragraph above, though, is out of place because it's largely wrong, biased, and unhelpful to any reader seriously interested in metaphysics. Presumably someone reading an encyclopedia article on metaphysics and philosophy wants to know what most philosophers actually do and what their general consensus is, not what one single author thinks they do.

It might be acceptable if properly prefaced: "It is popular among some to make fun of metaphysics or to compare it to religion. For example Heinlein..." Then it is clearly marked as an example of a minority opinion, which it is. --LDC

I have revised the statement to more adequately reference it as a minority opinion and to point out the obvious: that the statement applies to itself as well. Paul Robinson

The reason I deleted it and will continue deleting it is very simple. Heinlein is not a metaphysician and his opinions about metaphysics, whether true or false, don't matter. They don't matter any more than your opinions, i.e., you nonmetaphysicians, regardless of whether they are true or not. Famous metaphysicians, whose opinions about metaphysics are worth mentioning in an article about metaphysics, would include Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and many other historical figures, as well as Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, W. V. O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Martin Heidegger, D. M. Armstrong, David Lewis, and many others among more recent philosophers. In this context, the claim that you give a damn about authority is silly. An encyclopedia, insofar as it is about reliable information, requires that we pay attention to authority. An encyclopedia that treats Heinlein as an authority (by mentioning him as giving an important opinion about metaphysics) loses credibility thereby. Metaphysics has a very, very long and distinguished history, and if you're going to start mentioning names in an encyclopedia article, then for chrissakes mention a metaphysician. Mentioning Heinlein makes the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) look like a silly dilettante's game, which it isn't.

Pick the scientific discipline you know most about. Suppose someone were to add a quotation from someone who knows virtually nothing about that discipline to the article about that discipline. Why should anyone get upset when someone who does know a thing or two about discipline comes along, sees the quote, and summarily deletes it? --LMS

I am sympathetic to credibility, and I agree that recognized authorities should certainly be mentioned most prominently. But I disagree totally that quotes and examples from non-recognized sources are necessarily out of place. If they help to clarify and issue for the reader, or help demonstrate a popular belief about the issue (even if that is generally recognized by experts as a mistaken belief, which fact should also be mentioned), then they are good to include as long as they are correct, useful, and clearly expressed. The Heinlein paragraph still fails on some of those notes: it is still biased, and it's mostly incorrect, conflating metaphysics with mere opinion, which is itself a mere opinion not shared by most real metaphysicians. This paragraph doesn't belong, and I'm happy to be rid of it, but I just want to make a stronger point about "authority": what matters is the result, and only the result. If an article is clear, explains the point correctly, and mentions all the high points (including naming the recognized authorities), then the fact that it uses other sources is a plus, not a minus. It may lose credibility in the field, (i.e., among the cognocenti themselves), but they aren't the audience; ordinary educated people are the audience, and serving them is more important than stroking the egos of experts. In the "subjectivism" article, for example, I quote Churchill not because I think he is a great philosopher, but because Karl Popper, who is a recognized great philosopher, used that very example in his own work to demonstrate the silliness of extreme forms of subjectivism. He used it because it is a good example, not because it holds any authority. --LDC

There are, sure, exceptions to the implied rule; there are contexts in which it would be appropriate to quote a nonexpert in a subject about which there are experts. But if a quoted view is presented simply as one of the leading views, or an important enough view to mention as a view about some subject--rubbing shoulders, as it were, with more informed views--then there's nothing wrong with deleting it. That's my contention. I might come back to the Popper/Churchill thing later... --LMS

Moved the damn Heinlein metaphysics to Robert Heinlein/Robert Heinlein on metaphysics. May it be happy there. May we all be happy with this move. Peace.  :-)


[edit] Introduction

I think the introduction needs a rewrite. After reading 5 paragraphs I still don't have a clue what metaphysics is about. Enochlau 09:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] typo?

There is a section of text in the article that reads:

"... (except, in the case of Kant, to knowledge that the noumena exist)."

was it supposed to read:

"... (except, in the case of Kant, to acknowledge that the noumena exist)."


[edit] Terrible Paragraph

Other philosophical traditions have very different conceptions such as "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Problems from those in the Western philosophical tradition; for example, Taoism and indeed, much of Eastern philosophy completely reject many of the most basic tenets of Aristotelian metaphysics, principles which have by now become almost completely internalized and beyond question in Western philosophy, though a number of dissidents from Aristotelian metaphysics have emerged in the west, such as Hegel's Science of Logic.

I see the east/west dichotomy somebody was trying to explain here. But it is terribly written. Is it saying that the chicken/egg thing is western, based on Aristotelean premises that Taoists reject, or vice versa? that Aristotelean westerners don't take that question seriously, but Taoists do? I can't tell, that's the problem. Or just one of them. --Christofurio 23:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Seeing the original intention of the writer, I have inserted two long dashes to clarify the meaning. I realize this is unusual punctuation, so please feel free to substitute anything consistent with the usual style.

--Vanwaffle 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Vanwaffle

I certainly appreciate your effort, but I'm still not very clear on what it means. The chicken and the egg thing would seem to combine several questions (causation, biological procreation, the fixity or otherwise of species, perhaps even the eternity or otherwise of the cosmos!) on which various schools take various positions in both Asia and Europe. As to the dichotomy between Hegel and Aristotle, and privileging Hegel as a "dissident" from Aristotelean premises ... that makes a lot of presumptions and appears to be inappropriate for an introductory discussion. --Christofurio 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

-- I think there is a more fundamental problem with the whole paragraph. Specifically I mean that it should be greatly expanded or cut altogether. The statement "Taoism and indeed, much of Eastern philosophy completely reject many of the most basic tenets of Aristotelian metaphysics" is certainly not obviously true. Which tenets? What is meant by "Completely reject", wouldn't ignore be a better term? etc. For a survey article on metaphysics it's unreasonable to assume the reader will have sufficent knowledge of either western or eastern metaphysics to give the paragraph any meaning. 66.108.242.192 12:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm going to Be Bold and just cut it.

[edit] metaphysical debates in physics

I notice an error (or too poor phrasing) in the comment about Albert Einstein: Special relativity is a theory of physics, not metaphysics - the existence or not of a stationary ether, forming an absolute reference frame such as in Newton's theory is part of a metaphysical debate similar to debates in quantum mechanics (meaning of the equations, Schrödingers cat etc.). Thus not only we should change that phrase, but the existence of metaphysical debates on the sideline of physics (and wasn't it all natural philosophy?) is worth at least a separate paragraph or even likely it should it be a separate subject! For there is a whole lot of material about this, enough to fill books! Harald88 07:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC) OK, I now corrected that sentence (I had to come up with an improved formulation!); and I'll bring the rest as project to the project page. Harald88 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ignorance about metaphysics on physics page

On the physics discussion page I asked for suggestions how to harmonise the physics page with the metaphysics page but I got NO constructive suggestions. As it stands now, it sounds as if metaphysics is part of physics!Anyone who knows a good source about the distinctions between physics and metaphysics (as well as natural philosophy), please help out on the physics discussion page, thanks! Harald88 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed Sharad Adhikari reference

This text was added to the middle of the Criticisms section by an anonymous editor: "'Sharad Adhikari' currently lived in Nepal, South Asia is the greatest meta physicians of the entire world. The main principle of the subject is only super fact things which is created during planets stars and universe birth. Life is not important than rules."

I have reverted the change because 1) it doesn't make any sense, either in the context of criticisms of metaphysics or just in general; 2) a claim that someone is the "greatest metaphysician of the entire world" is ridiculously unjustifiable; and 3) "Sharad Adhikari" AND metaphysics returns no hits on Google. I hope that's okay with everyone. - AdelaMae 08:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay by me. The only person by that name I've ever heard of is a reporter who was jailed in the line of duty. (cached story) -- probably a worthy fellow, but not a metaphysician! --Christofurio 15:43, 21 November 2005

(UTC)

"Robert Heinlein, in his book To Sail Beyond the Sunset, has the main character, Maureen, state that the purpose of metaphysics is to ask questions..." (See above on this page for why Mr H.'s wise words were struck out). Perhaps Sharad asked too many questions? (Making him Robert Heinlein's kind of metaphysician after all). PiCo 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysical Domain (Outside the Known Universe)

I am new at this, so please advise me as to what I should do to improve my assessment. The thought of what lies beyond our universe can for many reasons not be answered. The farthest reaching corners of our universe are probably created by gamma radiation from distant pulsars. Science theorizes that beyond that, nothing exists. This thought reminds me of the heliocentric theory that has dominated the human timeline. What if beyond the edges of our own universe, other smaller and larger systems are at work?

There are two scientific theroies of the creation of the Universe. Both of these theories are a result of the Big Bang Theory.

The Closed Universe Theory (Shape of the universe) states that all matter will return to its point of origin. This is theorized through postulates on gravity. However, due to studies on the red shift, this theory is losing ground.

The Open Universe Theory states that all matter will continue to travel away from the center of the universe. According to science, the matter at the edges of the universe is actually accellerating away from the center of the universe.

Does this meant that galaxies would have to one day fall upon themselves, creating massive pulsars as they drift further into the vacume of deep space?

If so, would the vacume eventually cause them to tear at the seams as they spin into an exceedingly thin disc?

If the pulsar was spinning fast enough, and under enough vacumized pressure, would the combination of centripital force at the equator and space vacume cause the force we know in theory as antigravity?

During this explosion of the previously inploded object, would there be enough mass and energy to from quark stars and newtron stars? Stars large enought to expolde into meganovas? Would these so called meganovas be large enought to form galaxies?

If this event were to take place, so far away from other post-cellestial objects that they could never witness it, it would of course be an unknown. It seems within reason to assume that this event could very possibly take place in a future that we would never know, and may have taken place in a past we can only speculate on. This is not to say that our Universe is not a divine creation, only that it may be a product of a previous, larger universe that had relitively smaller pieces floating off into space. This event is known as a multiverse.

If anyone can expand upon or shed some light on this topic, I would appreciate it. I realize that this discussion is not classic metaphysics, but the thoughts have intrigued me since I was a small boy. These are thoughts to entertain the mind that I cannot find answers to because they lie mostly outside the rhelm of science.

--Naterock 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentality?

Is that a word? Should it be? Even if it's meant to be some sort of philosophical technical term I'm not familiar with, it shouldn't be in the introduction. I'd change it myself, but a better wording doesn't immediately occur to me. -- Calion | Talk 05:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the OED, yes. It is not, as far as I know, a technical philosophical term. Ig0774 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] metaphysics -> Physics?

The article reads: "In some cases subjects of metaphysical research have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of physics." I don't doubt this, but an example would be good, if anyone knows of one. Yesterdog 04:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, a substantial amount of credible references is needed to support the above mentioned claim. However, is it possible to have higher natural laws which are impossible to prove by scientific means? Also, metaphysics could be a part of higher physics which deal with the higher planes of existence. Many spiritually advanced people have talked about the existence of these planes. The Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda gives the reader a couple of examples of metaphysical existence which are perfectly natural. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of Cosmogony, these days, being part of Theoretical Physics rather than part of philosophy, in some sense, and less about transcendental yogi things. Yesterdog 05:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the above question from my understanding that it is not possible. If there exists some "higher law" and that law states the existance of interactions with known laws/particles then that intereaction is detectable and hence completly open to scientific scrutiny ( please note though we may not currently have the scientific knowedge to investgate it) if however there is no intereactions between the "higher law" and any known law/particles, then the "higher law" does not have any effect on the known world, if in addition to that is has no effect on the universe at all then it can hardly be consider to be useful to anyone or anything inside this universe as thus can be ignored as having no possbile application.bladeScythe 2:29 19 Auguest 2006 {UTC)
An example, Yesterdog, is Aristotelean metaphysics, which was motivated by the need to explain why animals breed true -- sheep give birth to lambs, not kids, and so on. It is fair to say that DNA has superseded the Aristotelean "indwelling Form".1Z 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

McCready: I think the OED entry for "metaphysics" supports the original content of the introduction. From the OED: "theoretical philosophy as the ultimate science of being and knowing." I certainly do not want to presuppose some metaphilosophical view that philosophy is equivalent to science, but I think that the analogy with science is useful to explain what metaphysics is to someone who is unfamiliar with the subect. The introduction in its current state is so general and abstract that I worry it is not illuminating. Thoughts?

I am also changing the word "universe" back to "world," as "world" is the correct philosophical term here. "Universe" suggests that metaphysics investigates only physical reality. K0hlrabi 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't checked the page for a few days, but it looks OK. Mccready 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byron mocked metaphysics in his work

What source was this found in?

[edit] Let's not throw "terms of art" and untranslated Latin and Greek words around

I added a sentence explaining what the Latin word qua means.

If a writer is going to talk about "being qua being" can't he/she translate and/or explain that the word qua in Latin means "as?" i.e. explain that what the phrase being qua being means right up front, Hence "being as being." Are we a bunch of Gnostics or what?

We risk becoming victims of our own particular gobbly gook and totally mystifying readers who stop by with a genuine interest in learning something about this and other philosophical topics. I've already read what look to be sincere comments such as, "I have absolutley no idea what you people are talking about." SimonATL 02:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC) comments, please.

Part of this project would also seem to involve introducing the interested readers in the language of the field. The concept of "qua"-ness is actually a fairly frequent issue in metaphysics especially in ancient and medieval philosophy. Instead of "just" translating the term - which is "as"- it should be explained, but the term should still be used in its proper context. This way when someone goes away from the article they are comfortable with the language.

[edit] Criticism

what about citing the a brief critisim from the vienna circle, with a link to further reading at the veinna circle page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle 69.158.16.61 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be relevant.1Z 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the article currently gives the impression that Alfred Ayer invented the objection from nonverifiability, when he was more of a populariser of logical positivism/the Vienna circle.1Z 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some additional criticism and observations

Since the time of Aristotle's Metaphysics science has been captivated by 'physics' (mundane cause and effect). Metaphysics attempts to go deeper than mundane physics to discover 'original causes'. An example of a metaphysical inquiry comes from Aristotle's Metaphysics and poses the question "why is fire hot". We know, by observation and experience, that fire is hot, however, the knowledge of why fire is hot still eludes mundane science. Metaphysics has determined that fire is an archetypal element and one of its attributes is 'hot'. Metaphysics does not explain why fire is hot but has determined that fire, at its essence, is 'hot' and its 'hotness' is not caused by any additional phenomenona (although the 'hot' can be varied by what substance is burning). In other words, to the metaphysican, fire and hot form a unity/identity (although you can have hot without fire but not fire without hot).

Metaphysics is a quest to know 'Natural Law' (primary causes and effects). For example: A boulder rolls down a hill and strikes a metaphysician... - The physicist determines the cause as gravity and erosion - The priest determines that God did it (a lesser form of metaphysics) - The metaphysician attempts to determine "Why was I struck with a boulder"? ; not caring about gravity, erosion, or God.

In brief (after twenty years of metaphysical investigation) I have determined that Metaphysics is a system of determining and applying originating causes and effects that transcends mundane physics.

One final example that is (opinion) the most germaine: A person wishes for a star shaped piece of blue glass. The following week, while walking in the woods (alone) the person notices something glistening under the grass and upon investigating finds a star shaped piece of blue glass. Mundane physics does not have a 'how come' for this scenario. The priest would say that 'God answered your prayer'. The metaphysican would determine that the person who made the wish discovered the true cause of phenomena.

Physics is a subset of metaphysics (not the other way around). At its essence, metaphysics is learning how to interface with 'all that is' and to, over time, become a master of the knowledge of original causes and effects. To the metaphysican, 'rationality and science' are mere tools compared with the successful quest for absolute knowledge, wisdom and mastery. Metaphysics is essentially, a working knowledge and experience of the powers of the self as both cause and effect. John Charles Webb 06:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your examples seem to raise questions rather than answer them, if this is your intention then by all means continue. However I would indeed benefit from some additonal information. in the boulder example you state what the metaphysician does not care about, but what answers do they care about, is it some kind of ultimate truth, some external or internal intent, summation of all reasons leading to the event, or otherwise. In addition in the follow paragraph you offer a summary of metaphysics, are you saying here that there exists causes and effects that can be followed from first cause to result based on logical progression. And if so are these out side of physics, in areas not yet open to physics, or alternitavly not capable of being followed by logical progression whether based on defined metaphysical reasioning or physics hypothosis, or otherwise.bladeScythe 2:49 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms and citations

I'm a bit worried about the criticisms section having acquired some original research over the years, so I've added a slew of citation needed tags. Here are the especially problematic ones:

Another is Friedrich Nietzsche, who argued, in stringent contrast to Heidegger's estimation of him being a metaphysician, metaphysics is altogether false and that the worlds of appearances and of actuality (i.e., the "metaphysical world") are one and the same, or essentially nonexistent, a construct based on the needs of humans, e.g., to simplify matters for themselves when conceptualizing.
The way you tell it, Nietzsche didn't understand what metaphsyics was. "The worlds of appearances and of actuality are one and the same" is a metaphysical statement -- indeed, it is pretty much the metaphysics of Berkeley.1Z 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly not the standard reading of Nietzsche. In fact, in some ways it sounds like a misreading of Nietzsche. Even with citations it will need to be modified to show that this is a reading of a problematic philosopher and not the de facto statement on what that philosopher said.
British universities became less concerned with the area for much of the 20th century; the later work of Wittgenstein discredited metaphysical questions as nonsense on purely linguistic grounds. [citation needed]

This statement on Wittgenstein is a bit of an oversimplification, and I'm not at all sure that this was his project. It needs a citation and it needs clarification. -Smahoney 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I deleted the sentence involving Nietzsche for the while.) My primary inclination as it currently stands, assuming genuine feasibility of it, is to expand the range of the criticism section to include subsections of particular philosophers—in the end permitting a more adequate depiction of the nature of their criticisms, for all the article currently has is a strain of more or less unverifiable and generalized topic sentences that do little to aid the potential understanding of them by the typical, uninformed reader. If this is too much for this article, one can always be made focusing on said criticisms. — ignis scripta 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Good call. I'd be more than willing to help out where I can. Specific sections that I can think of off the top of my head that should be added are, of course, on the Logical Positivists, Derrida, Heidegger, and the linguistic turn, though I'm sure there are more. -Smahoney 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Yuck. Who were the retards who wrote this article? Regardless of the answer, just want to jot down a few points. First, Wittgenstein and his philosophy were decidedly part German Mysticism. For the love of god, everyone who's any one knows that. Next, Greek Philosophy is made up of three realms. The first realm is made of beliefs (ontology). The second is made up of facts (epistimology). And the third realm is made up of values (axiology). Peace out.

[edit] standards for inclusion of list of metaphysicists

it seems to me that you need some sort of standard of inclusion for that list. It already has debatable members. The easy one is to just refer to the field of philosophy/metaphysics through a citation analysis system, like the philosopher's index. so if the author has 20 or more citations in metaphysics in the philosopher's index, then he or she is clearly a metaphysician, else it is debatable. --Buridan 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that only works for contemporary philosophers. --D. Webb 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
And the number of citations doesn't guarantee importance. Nor is every important metaphysician guaranteed to be included by this standard. --D. Webb 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Elements Of Islamic Metaphysics" by 'Allaamah Mohammad Hosain Tabatabaei: http://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Islamic-Metaphysics-Muhamma-Tabatabai/dp/1904063063/sr=8-11/qid=1158938350/ref=sr_1_11/702-7061947-2360821?ie=UTF8&s=gateway

What does this have to do with the standard in need here? --D. Webb 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I suggest that to be included as a notable metaphysician in this article, one has had to have made what counts as a significant contribution to metaphysics within the history of philosophy, stopping for the time being at the end of the end of the 20th century. I say "within the history of philosophy" to exclude new age stuff, which belongs to another sense of the word "metaphysics" and another article. And although clearly some contemporary philosophers are eligible, I think it best not to include someone for the article/book he or she published last year or the year before last etc.; hence stopping at the end of the 20th century seems like a good idea for now. --D. Webb 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am doubtful about the inclusion of physicsts like Max Planck and Louis de Broglie in the list. (I'll allow Erwin Schrodinger because of his book "What is Life?").1Z 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And the "metaphysics writers" link is to a list of new-agers.1Z 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Carl Reichenbach is a scientist and pseudoscientist, but not, I think, a metaphysician. Perhaps hans Reichenbach was intended. 1Z 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Fillmore is a religious figure.1Z 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few (theoretical) physicists listed as metaphysicians for no particular reason as far as I can see. Planck and de Broglie have already been mentioned in this regard above and there are others. There is not a single reference to metaphysics in the entire Einstein entry so why is he listed here? Also, Heisenberg???

[edit] Academic Definition of Metaphysics

I removed this quote: "This meaning is not recognized in academic philosophy." from the definition of Metaphysics as things beyond the phyiscal world as the statement is simply false. It is frequently used in all manner of discussions on thought, dualism, morality, etc. as literal entities that exist beyond the phyiscal world beyond human observation.

However, it may be badly structured in that metaphysics is frequently used to relate to items trancendant of the physical world, however, the healing crystals and such are not used in an academic context. A more ideal solution might be to seperate the first sentence in that from the second and put them in two seperate paragraphs, reintroducing the sentence I removed into the second one to make it clear it applies narrowly to the bookstore analogy instead of both the bookstore analogy and all claims to things beyond the physical world.

[edit] How metaphysics and ontology differ

I have a linguistic perspective. It seems to me that metaphysics attempts to go from facts to general principles to "metafacts" (or facts about "the essence of things"), and ontology attempts to give a systematic account of which words (particularly some nouns) have referents, and an account of how other words (particularly other nouns) could be construed as having referents (via collections) or not. I do not find the term being qua being at all helpful to understanding anything at all, it rather assumes a particular ontology - that there is some underlying essence to being. I have little expectation of anything being resolved in metaphysics. I do think some headway might be made in ontology. Is this perspective in line with any major movement? --JimWae 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The "meta" in "metaphysics" does not work like the "meta" in "meta-analysis" as the article tries to explain. 1Z 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quine a metaphysician?

I question the inclusion of Williard Van Orman Quine in the list of metaphysicians, and believe that he would have objected to such classification.

What arguments can be advanced for retaining him in that list?

162.84.18.98 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)DLB

Two comments. First, Quine contributed to metaphysical discourse by attacking certain metaphysical theories. He was a nominalist and the nominalist/realist debate about universals certainly counts as a metaphysical debate. Secondly, one might argue that his naturalistic holism does have metaphysical implications; it's just that Quine didn't want to do metaphysics, but wanted rather to commit himself to any metaphysical implications of modern science. Now, this shouldn't normally get a person on the list, since then almost everyone would be a metaphysician, but this is a rather special case since it is a philosopher who explicitly states that this is his opinion. And anyway, the first thing I mentioned, i.e. his nominalism, should be enough to get him on the list all by itself. --D. Webb 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you don't have to be a platonist to be a metaphysician. --D. Webb 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent attempts to re-work article

[edit] Omissions from Central Questions of Metaphysics

This section has two major omissions:

Determinism and Free Will

Mind and Matter.

1Z 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space and Time

The first paragraph is OK, if brief.

The rest of the section mentions a number of speculative cosmological/astophysical theories which aren't very relevant to metaphysics as a philosophical discipline. It ends with some claims that look decidedly WP:OR.

"In the light of A.Guth's and L.Crane's speculations the distant progeny of people will play the role of Plato's Demiurge. The concepts of quantum foam (quantum vacuum) and multivers ( especially Laszlo's Metaverse ) are related to the notion of pantheistic Substance proposed by Baruch Spinoza"

Material added by Anbro, around 23/12/06

1Z 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, I've weeded through some of it, though its not perfect by far. Also, there is some strange claims about space and time questions in terms of metaphysics and evolutionary theories...the theory of evolution is not a telos, arguing otherwise is generally supportive of Intelligent Design, is this a reference to that? - Sam 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links: ways of seeing

"ways of seeing" appears to be a personal website.1Z 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I am considering adding a sentence to the first paragraph:


Metaphysics (from Greek: μετά (meta) = "after", φυσικά (phisiká) = "those on nature", derived from the arrangement of Aristotle's works in antiquity[1]) is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the nature of the world. It is considered to be one of the fundamental branches of philosophy, along with epistemology and logic. It is the study of being or reality.[2] It addresses questions such as: What is the nature of reality? Is there a God? What is man's place in the universe?

1Z 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think one of the biggest problems that I'm coming up against when trying to read and edit this article is that its fractured, and ends up having to repeat itself. I think that the "Central questions" sections have to be mergered and re-ordered, the "history" section doesn't really address the history of metaphysics, that "subdisciplines," "topics and problems," and "metaphysicians" can be collapsed into a see also or further reading section, and that the criticism should really be elaborated on. Hopefully in the next week I can start submitting some clearer solutions. - Sam 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MIND AND BODY

I understand your desire that metaphysicians need to have been recognized in the academic world. However, I would argue that Mary Baker Eddy has a legitimate place in an article on metaphysics.

First, a student of moral philosophy herself, she opened the first "Metaphysical college" in Boston under the laws of the state in the late 1800s. It can be argued that her metaphysics and her theology were mixed togehter. But, that is true for many of the great philosophers.

2nd - Her great contribution to the study of metaphysics is the demand she made that metaphysics be practical not just theoritical. So, she went about proving the validitiy of her metaphysics through healing. Hers was a system of healing, as opposed to the belief in some God who healed randomly is asked in the right way. If you read her works, your find that her arguements are philosophically very sound. And her metaphysical system consistent. For example, this arguement.

"The fundamental propositions of divine metaphysics

 are summarized in the four following, to me, self-evident
 propositions. Even if reversed, these proposi- Reversible

12 tions will be found to agree in statement and propositions

 proof, showing mathematically their exact relation to
 Truth. De Quincey says mathematics has not a foot to

15 stand upon which is not purely metaphysical.

     1.  God is All-in-all. 
     2.  God is good.  Good is Mind.

18 3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter.

     4.  Life, God, omnipotent good, deny death, evil, sin,
 disease. — Disease, sin, evil, death, deny good, omnipo-

21 tent God, Life.

     Which of the denials in proposition four is true? Both
 are not, cannot be, true."   Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy

The 3rd reason I think she should be included in this section is because she is a woman thinker who has had an impact on American thought. The 4th reason she should be included is she presents an alternative to the traditional "does God exist?" arguements. Her metaphysics pushes us to reevaluate the traditional arguements we have been using to define God.


I understand that you may feel that once you let in one religious thinker, you have to let in them all. But religious thinkers have all ready been admitted. Many of which are admited because they aligned themselves with Catholic ideology. Plato was teaching his religious system. They were the values he held very dear. The values he was willing to live and die by. I think the better question is "does the author present a unique metaphysical system that has had an impact on world thinking.

I would argue that Christian Science is a unique metaphysical system of healing. I would like to include this in the section. "Christian Science, a metaphysical system of healing as presented by author and theologian Mary Baker Eddy, proposed that Mind is God, and an understanding of the mental nature of existence proving metaphysics to be practical, not just theoretical."

Simplywater 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling something metaphysics doesn't mean it is.1Z 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

interesting responce - Well, her ideas are definitly concerned with the science of being. What is being? and how do we turn the table and quit looking at the individual and defining the infinite. And instead look at the infinite and make deductions about the individual. As a young girl she was taught logic, philosophy, and moral science by her brother, a lawyer from Dartmonth.

You can take a look at how her ideas compare with other philosophers/metaphysicains at the link below.

There is an historical argument because the State of Mass. granted her a charter for the Mass. Metaphysical College.

I'm just looking for the right way to include her in the discussion. Any ideas? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science#Philosophy

209.244.31.61 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Simplywater 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Every religion "looks at" the nature of being. However, if the process is not based on reason, it is not philosophy.

"the State of Mass. granted her a charter for the Mass. Metaphysical College. "

Governmentally calling something metaphysics doesn't make it metaphysics. A state legislature got close to redefining pi to be 3 once...

1Z 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well her system of metaphysics is grounded in reason. Her metaphysical system actually challanges other thinkers to show practical applications for their theories. Is metaphysics just theoritical, mental gymnastics? Or can it have a practical application in life. Her healing system proved that metaphysics can be very practical. And in fact, many of the quatum physics theories that are springing up echo her early teachings.

Simplywater 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is self-evident is not reasoning.1Z 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm then I suppose saying something is not self evident isn't realy reasoning either.Simplywater 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etymology

I believe the origin of the word metaphysics is correctly given in the beginning as deriving from the books that follow Aristotle's Physics. However, the first sentence says that the word implies that the subject is the nature of change. I think there's something contradictory there. Also, I think the page was better before this first sentence was changed all, and that saying metaphysics is the study of the nature of change is a bit off. I suggest reverting back to the previous first sentence. (see history)

CraigDesjardins 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.1Z 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/Talk%7EMetaphysics_94e4.html"