Metaphysics

[Haleysred]

What exactly is Metaphysics?

[Spenser]

I'd say a joke but not all of us are laughing...

[Haleysred]

No really, can anyone tell me what Metaphysics is? Either your opinion on it if you don't agree with the idea, or just a definition of the belief.

[Howard]

Metaphysics has a number of meanings depending on the context, but for a forum such as this it could be thought of as a methodology that explains, or attempts to explain, the fundamental nature of reality. The primary ones at play here are the metaphysics of the non-believers, which is based on naturalism, and that of the believers, which is based on supernaturalism, or a combination of naturalism and supernaturalism.

At least that’s my understanding of the term.

[Haleysred]

Do you know then how Metaphysics relates to the Big Bang Theory?

[sodium]

Originally posted by Haleysred
What exactly is Metaphysics?

I would say that metaphysics is the study of (or at least the talking about of) whatever reality underlies physics. Now, of course modern physics underlies old Newtonian Physics, but most people wouldn't call that metaphysics. So metaphysics must either be whatever underlying reality we don't actually know about yet, or it only covers underlying realities that don't look like physics. Personally, I think it's physics all the way down.

[theophilus]

The Greek word "meta" means AFTER or beyond.

So, metaphysics means "after physics;" I believe the term was coined to describe Aristotle's (Plato's) book on physics.

It is the branch of philosophy which deals with the question "what is real."

The other two branches of philosophy are epistemology, i.e., how we know things, and axiology (now ususally called ethics) which deals with the question "what is good?"

I suppose it relates to the Big Bang because BB prescribes that the universe existing can be accounted for on a purely materialistic grounds, i.e., the BB was purely a function of energy/matter.

Epistemology would ask "how can this be known?" The unbeliever must resort to circular reasoning by asserting that he "knows" this because there is a naturalistic explanation to everything.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by theophilus
The Greek word "meta" means AFTER or beyond.

So, metaphysics means "after physics;" I believe the term was coined to describe Aristotle's (Plato's) book on physics.

It is the branch of philosophy which deals with the question "what is real."

The other two branches of philosophy are epistemology, i.e., how we know things, and axiology (now ususally called ethics) which deals with the question "what is good?"

I suppose it relates to the Big Bang because BB prescribes that the universe existing can be accounted for on a purely materialistic grounds, i.e., the BB was purely a function of energy/matter.

Epistemology would ask "how can this be known?" The unbeliever must resort to circular reasoning by asserting that he "knows" this because there is a naturalistic explanation to everything.

This is basically it, although I would add "Aesthetics" and "Logic" to the branches mentioned above.

I think "metaphysics" was coined by accident. Artistotle began a book on philosophy re: an unamed topic. He named it "metaphysics" simply because it followed his book on physics - "after physics".

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
This is basically it, although I would add "Aesthetics" and "Logic" to the branches mentioned above.

I think "metaphysics" was coined by accident. Artistotle began a book on philosophy re: an unamed topic. He named it "metaphysics" simply because it followed his book on physics - "after physics".

WOW! You mean I was "basically" right about something? That's gotta be a first. Probably because it is so late, I didn't know what I was saying.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by theophilus
WOW! You mean I was "basically" right about something? That's gotta be a first. Probably because it is so late, I didn't know what I was saying.

Well, let's start off with "basically", then we'll move you up to "generally".

Before you know it, you'll be at "actually"! ;)

[eh]

Originally posted by Haleysred
Do you know then how Metaphysics relates to the Big Bang Theory?

A key branch of metaphysics is ontology, the study of existence. Since the big bang deals with the origins of space and time, you can see how it has ontological implications.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Spenser
I'd say a joke but not all of us are laughing...

I must apologize, when I read this yesterday my head registered [something else], not metaphysics. I was tired...:)

Edited cause I don't know what I'm talking about today either. I work in Ca elections so you can imagine...

[luvluv]

1) I don't think it was Aristotle who coined the term metaphysics, I think it was somebody who came after Aristotle and who was tryig to organize his writings.

2) I've never understood precisely the distinction between metaphysics and ontology. Is it that ontology is only the description of what it means to exist, and an opinion as to what exists; and metaphysics is how the existents create or fit into overall reality?

[eh]

Metaphysics generally also includes things such as the existence of God, theology, and other things "out of the physical world". So while ontology covers all existence, other brances deal with the specifics.

Though I suppose if physicalism is true, there is no need for a "meta" at all. Physics would be quite literally all there is.

[Jobar]

Hi Haleysred, and welcome.

Metaphysics is, by one meaning, philosophy. So I'm moving this topic to our Philosophy forum.

[Haleysred]

thank you for moving it, sorry. I didn't know I was posting in the God one when I first posted. :)

[jon1]

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics which is concerned with what kinds of things exist. Metaphysics is concerned of course with what kinds of things exist as well as the nature of those things. Also some have made the distinction between revisionary metaphysics (i.e. classical metaphysics along the lines of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, etc...) and descriptive metaphysics which attempts to provide a description of the way we think about reality rather than attempting to discover the nature of reality itself.

[Huzington]

Metaphysics, though it makes many claims about reality, has the least in common with reality. Metaphysics deals with things in isolation, abstracted from the interdependencies and interralations of things -- this is contrary to science. And it tends to advocate the doctrine of things-in-themselves. It is an intimate friend of religion, superstition, and mysticism, and therefore the manwhore of the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries of all ages. It advocates "self-identification" and other forms of primitive thinking. It is an enemy of science, materialism, physical monism, dialectics, and Marxism. Metaphysics is also used to combat atheism. It is always opposed to progressive thinking.

[jon1]

Originally posted by Huzington
Metaphysics, though it makes many claims about reality, has the least in common with reality. Metaphysics deals with things in isolation, abstracted from the interdependencies and interralations of things -- this is contrary to science. And it tends to advocate the doctrine of things-in-themselves. It is an intimate friend of religion, superstition, and mysticism, and therefore the manwhore of the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries of all ages. It advocates "self-identification" and other forms of primitive thinking. It is an enemy of science, materialism, physical monism, dialectics, and Marxism. Metaphysics is also used to combat atheism. It is always opposed to progressive thinking.

Hmmm. You do know that materialism and "physical monism" as you put it are metaphysical beliefs don't you? I'm not sure how metaphysics is an intimate friend of religion, superstition, and mysticism unless you're referring to what new-agers call metaphysics.

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by luvluv
1) I don't think it was Aristotle who coined the term metaphysics, I think it was somebody who came after Aristotle and who was tryig to organize his writings.



Aristotle wrote a book 'Fysica' (Physics). This book was conserved in a tome, together with other books. The next book in the tome was by Aristotle too, untitled though. So it went by the name 'meta ta fysica' shorthand metafysica. 'The one after Fysica.'
I guess it was about ontology, but I am not sure here.
That was the story I was told, so yes you are right, it wasn't Aristotle himself.

[boneyard bill]

jon1 writes:

Hmmm. You do know that materialism and "physical monism" as you put it are metaphysical beliefs don't you? I'm not sure how metaphysics is an intimate friend of religion, superstition, and mysticism unless you're referring to what new-agers call metaphysics.

Yes. Materialism is a metaphysical position. Basically, metaphysics is a claim about reality that is inferred from the appearances but is not, itself, a direct observation. We do not observe "matter." We observe hardness, impenetrability, shape, color, etc. The claim that these qualities are caused by a single substance that is itself inert and inactive and subject to physical laws, is a metaphysical claim.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by jon1
Hmmm. You do know that materialism and "physical monism" as you put it are metaphysical beliefs don't you? I'm not sure how metaphysics is an intimate friend of religion, superstition, and mysticism unless you're referring to what new-agers call metaphysics.

please tell me how every form of materialism in history is metaphysical.

[eh]

Materialism is an ontology, and ontology is a branch of metaphysics. Hence, materialism is metaphysics.

[John Page]

Originally posted by boneyard bill
Yes. Materialism is a metaphysical position. Basically, metaphysics is a claim about reality that is inferred from the appearances but is not, itself, a direct observation. We do not observe "matter." We observe hardness, impenetrability, shape, color, etc. The claim that these qualities are caused by a single substance that is itself inert and inactive and subject to physical laws, is a metaphysical claim.
:notworthy

Everything mind-side of sense data is meta-physical. All "positions" are meta-physical. The mind (IMO) is made of physically observable stuff and our minds are just learning to comprehend how "positions" etc. are supervenient upon the physical stuff of mind.

Cheers, John

[Huzington]

Originally posted by eh
Materialism is an ontology, and ontology is a branch of metaphysics. Hence, materialism is metaphysics.

Materialism is not necessarily ontological.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by John Page
:notworthy

Everything mind-side of sense data is meta-physical. All "positions" are meta-physical. The mind (IMO) is made of physically observable stuff and our minds are just learning to comprehend how "positions" etc. are supervenient upon the physical stuff of mind.

Cheers, John

Your evidence there is the side of subject in data transfer? Men do not even know how to define "mind". I am very sceptical of this mystical, metaphysical entity, the mind.

[eh]

Originally posted by Huzington
Materialism is not necessarily ontological.

When materialism makes statements about existence, it becomes an ontology. Physicalism for example, is the belief that all existence is physical, and that there is no such thing as any mind or spirit with independent existence of this physical basis of everything.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Huzington
Your evidence there is the side of subject in data transfer?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Originally posted by Huzington
Men do not even know how to define "mind".
Ah! How do you define it and what do you see as the issue in men defining it? Different than women?
Originally posted by Huzington
I am very sceptical of this mystical, metaphysical entity, the mind.
Ooooh, I never said mystical, only supervenient (coming or occurring as something additional) upon or as an aspect of physical matter that thinks.

Cheers, John

[boneyard bill]

Huzington writes:

I am very sceptical of this mystical, metaphysical entity, the mind

What part of you is it that is so sceptical of this mind?

[Frotiw]

What part of you is it that is so sceptical of this mind?

Hehe ;) I'm Not sure wherither it's the axons, dendrits, or what part of the physical brain that is sceptical. -As I presume there exist no "You", "I" or any other methaphysical mind?

[Frotiw]

Originally posted by jon1
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics which is concerned with what kinds of things exist. Metaphysics is concerned of course with what kinds of things exist as well as the nature of those things. Also some have made the distinction between revisionary metaphysics (i.e. classical metaphysics along the lines of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, etc...) and descriptive metaphysics which attempts to provide a description of the way we think about reality rather than attempting to discover the nature of reality itself.

This point of view I agree most on so far. The origin of the word is not very interesting. It is true that it is a very old world used by Aritstoteles among others but the meaning of the world has long changed.
There is good reason to ask what metaphysic is and the answer is not as wellestablished as many would like. There is a good reason for this and despite the mockery of emperical positivists it lies in a strong realization from philosophers(even long ago) that the way a question is asked has effect on the possible answers to the question. That means though there is some common core the metaphysical question has been asked in more than one way, thereby attemptin to overcome the obstacels presented by the previous asked question. I think the usual view is that metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature of being, namely the primary being. That is that being which existence does not depend on anything else.
Problem is as soon as one thoroughly dig into this branch of philosophy one realize that is intimately linked to epstimology and possible also other areas of philosophy.

My point is in short that if you just accept some halv-baked definition of metaphysics you will most likely restrict yourself from many answers. That is why this question is so very hard to answer. You must be very carefull not to restrict youself from possible answers to the metaphysical question before you have even begone.
Also though this realization is frustrating it's doesn't really mean that metaphysic is meaningless or doesn't deserve an answer. It may be that we as humans are poorly skilled in handling this question however there must still be something which has a nature on it's own. Just because it's deficiult or even impossible doesn't mean there isn't an answer better than those put forth before. It's like looking for something we know exist(because something does exists obviosly) but we don't know what it is and we don't know how to find it. As we have never seen it we have not even good reason to asume we can actually see it. We are not even sure we can find it by rational think alone, or any other way but we are sure that it does exist.

People can be faily confident that unless they experience frustration at least at some point during metaphysical thinking they have not grasped the metaphyscal question very thoroughly.

Cheers Frotiw

P.S. I'm sorry if I am being to vague and are speaking mumble-jumble only I myself understand. It's late and I need sleep.

[boneyard bill]

Frotiw writes:

Hehe I'm Not sure wherither it's the axons, dendrits, or what part of the physical brain that is sceptical. -As I presume there exist no "You", "I" or any other methaphysical mind?

Your failure to answer the question is noted. But on what basis do you accept a metaphysical notion of matter that you presume constitutes the physical brain?

[Frotiw]

Originally posted by boneyard bill
Frotiw writes:



Your failure to answer the question is noted. But on what basis do you accept a metaphysical notion of matter that you presume constitutes the physical brain?

Hi Boneyard Bill

Im sorry I should have made myself more clear was just trying to be funny. I thought the joke might have made a point to the hardcore physicalists. My intention was just to hint that it is practically impossible to remove all references to the metaphysical entity the mind from the language. If consequent upholding "mind" is a meaningless word (as physicalist tend to do) one can not speak of e.g. "I". Removing all references from the language that point to the mind will leave a very very odd and strange language. Properly not even comprehensible without presuposing some sort of mind.

Cheers

[boneyard bill]

Posted by Frotiw:

Im sorry I should have made myself more clear was just trying to be funny. I thought the joke might have made a point to the hardcore physicalists

You succeeded in being funny. Unfortunately I get those kinds of anwers from hard-core physicalists all the time so it's hard to tell when someone is being tongue-in-cheek.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by sodium
I would say that metaphysics is the study of (or at least the talking about of) whatever reality underlies physics.

Exactly. Really, that would be my definition of all philosophy - it's the study of those things and questions which underly all our thought (eg. Aesthetics for art, mathematical logic for math(s), metaphysics for physics, etc.)

Now, of course modern physics underlies old Newtonian Physics, but most people wouldn't call that metaphysics. So metaphysics must either be whatever underlying reality we don't actually know about yet, or it only covers underlying realities that don't look like physics. Personally, I think it's physics all the way down.

I don't thionk that's justifiable. How, purely thorugh physics, canyou justify the scientific method, or the bedrock assumptions of physics like the existence of an external world. Any justification would have to be circular.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

[Frotiw]

Originally posted by boneyard bill
Posted by Frotiw:



You succeeded in being funny. Unfortunately I get those kinds of anwers from hard-core physicalists all the time so it's hard to tell when someone is being tongue-in-cheek.

:) hehe Ok - btw. I've had the same experience from HC physicalists also.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by John Page
Sorry, I don't understand the question.

That the mind is involved in anything

Ah! How do [b]you define it and what do you see as the issue in men defining it? Different than women?

Obviously I was using "men" to mean people.

Ooooh, I never said mystical, only supervenient (coming or occurring as something additional) upon or as an aspect of physical matter that thinks.

That is a mystical notion.

[John Page]

Huzzah!

Originally posted by Huzington
Your evidence there is the side of subject in data transfer?

Originally posted by John Page
Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Originally posted by Huzington
That the mind is involved in anything
:confused: Please restate your question intelligibly.


Originally posted by Huzington
Men do not even know how to define "mind".
Originally posted by John Page
Ah! How do you define it and what do you see as the issue in men defining it? Different than women?
Originally posted by Huzington
Obviously I was using "men" to mean people.
Could you answer the first question, please. How does Huzington define "mind"?

Originally posted by John Page
Ooooh, I never said mystical, only supervenient (coming or occurring as something additional) upon or as an aspect of physical matter that thinks.Originally posted by Huzington
That is a mystical notion.
Supervenience is mystical? Let me take a specific example. Do you think that the numeral "2" here is mystical? Do you think that its representation of the quantity two is mystical? If so, it seems to me that I can have a computer perform the mystical trick identifying instances of the number "2" and replace them with the word "two" or a picture of two of something.
See third para down in this link on "supervenient" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/#2) where it says "It is almost universally acknowledged among philosophers that all value is “supervenient” on certain nonevaluative features of the thing that has value." I hope this helps to demystify the topic for you.

Cheers, John

[Robert Anthony]

As the English philosopher F.H. Bradley said: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."

[John Page]

Originally posted by Robert Anthony
As the English philosopher F.H. Bradley said: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."
Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. ;)

How about "Metaphysics is the science of the abstract, information-filled world of our minds" He would then be defining bad metaphysics.

[Witt]

Metaphysics is:
The study of, that which we assume exists before we proceed with a physics or a consequent logic.

Witt

[John Page]

Originally posted by Witt
Metaphysics is:
The study of, that which we assume exists before we proceed with a physics or a consequent logic.
Hi Witt:

Where did this definition come from? If applied, it seems to me it will result in disappearing up the infinite regression a priori vortex. IMO the physical layer supports the "meta-" layer and any logic is consequent upon the system that implements (the operational rules) of that logic.

Cheers, John

[Witt]

Hi Witt:

Where did this definition come from?

Me.

If applied, it seems to me it will result in disappearing up the infinite regression a priori vortex.

Hahaha, what the hell is that?

Hi John,

John:
IMO the physical layer supports the "meta-" layer and any logic is consequent upon the system that implements (the operational rules) of that logic.

Yes, all logics are systems of decision. That's the closest that we can get, to the concept of absolute truth.

Do we need the concept of absolute truth?

Witt

[John Page]

Originally posted by Witt
Where did this definition come from?

Me.

Thanks, at least I'm debating with someone who's not afraid to venture their opinion as opposed to quotations.
Originally posted by Witt
If applied, it seems to me it will result in disappearing up the infinite regression a priori vortex.

Hahaha, what the hell is that?

I don't know, nobody's ever come back. It sucks.
Originally posted by Witt
Yes, all logics are systems of decision. That's the closest that we can get, to the concept of absolute truth.

Do we need the concept of absolute truth?
Need? It seems we have it (the concept, that is), anyway.

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

Huzington
Metaphysics deals with things in isolation, abstracted from the interdependencies and interralations of things -- this is contrary to science.
I see nothing in the defintions to support the claim that "Metaphysics deals with things in isolation". On the contrary.

Metaphysics is also used to combat atheism. It is always opposed to progressive thinking.
These conclusions are not sound, because they are based on the faulty definitions.

the Philosophy Pages (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy)
metaphysics
Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues. From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of things (and how many of each) exist. But Kant argued that this task is impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of our thought about the world. Strawson calls the former activity revisionary, and the latter descriptive, metaphysics.
_________________________

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: meta·phys·ics
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
Etymology: Medieval Latin Metaphysica, title of Aristotle's treatise on the subject, from Greek (ta) meta (ta) physika, literally, the (works) after the physical (works); from its position in his collected works
Date: 1569
1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience
2 : METAPHYSIC 2

[Nowhere357]

John Page
Everything mind-side of sense data is meta-physical. All "positions" are meta-physical. The mind (IMO) is made of physically observable stuff and our minds are just learning to comprehend how "positions" etc. are supervenient upon the physical stuff of mind.
I really like your first sentence.

For the rest - brains are physically observable. I don't understand how you can claim that the experience of subjective awareness is physically observable - afaik it is subjective not objective! Mental not physical! Mind not matter!

And minds are that which subjectively experience! Also, I'm apparently easily excited this morning! Judging from my use of exclamation points!

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
For the rest - brains are physically observable. I don't understand how you can claim that the experience of subjective awareness is physically observable - afaik it is subjective not objective!
We can observe someone undergoing a subjective experience, which in turn (I believe from what I read about brain medicine and experiements) demonstrates that the subjective experience correlates to brain activity.

I'm not suggesting that we can observe subjective experience "from the inside".

Cheers, John

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by John Page
We can observe someone undergoing a subjective experience, which in turn (I believe from what I read about brain medicine and experiements) demonstrates that the subjective experience correlates to brain activity.
Then let's go enjoy the subjective experience of sharing a few beers. :cool:

[John Page]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then let's go enjoy the subjective experience of sharing a few beers. :cool:
Intersubjective lager?