Talk:Metaphysics

Origin of the word Metaphysics

I'm not sure how to enter it or I would do it myself; however I feel that it is important the root of the word be included. It seems valuable insight could be gained upon noting that "meta" stems (as I believe) from the Greek for "before" and physics is "nature" Sovereignlance (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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.  :-)

---

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)."

Byron mocked metaphysics in his work

What source was this found in?

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.

---

I believe an adequate definition must first stem from having the root of the word made available. Sovereignlance (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Defn

The defn in terms of two basic questions is supported by a ref which is specific to "David Lewis's Metaphysics", not MP in general William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Had noticed section taken out, and happened to be looking up Mediumship, and has similar acknowledgements and thoughts, similar to Metaphysics. Plato. Cosmos. Stalin </\>75.202.121.255 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The REAL Temporal Displacement

 When the subject of Temporal Displacement comes up, most people think right away about time travel.  Temporal Displacement has also become a popular term to those that watch the T.V. series "The Island". And of course there is always "Back to the Future".  My theory of Temporal displacement is more fundamental, realistic and akin to the term Temporal Distortion.  Most people are aware of what Temporal distortion is(the feeling that everything is in slow motion, usually in a stressful or traumatic situation).

 My theory on Temporal Displacement is similar in that you "perceive" time differntly than normal.  Time is unmovable, unstoppable, and unmanipulative.  However, our PERCEPTION of time is completely different.  Time flies when your having fun, time drags when your bored, etc.  My theory of Temporal Displacement is based on this but relates mostly to our perception of time while sleeping.  The phrase Temporal Displacement just came to me one morning and had nothing to do with any of the above forementioned sources.  It occured after I had just woken up and had felt like I had only just barely gotten to sleep when my alarm clock went of.

 So, simply stated, my theory is this:

Temporal Displacement is our perception of the passage time upon waking from sleep. Two examples are: Waking and feeling as if you had slept for hours when in reality only a few minutes or only about an hour has actually passed, AND the feeling of having only just gone to sleep when in reality hours have passed.

Remember, these experiences are verifiable with just about anyone you ask, the term "Temporal Displacement" is just the name I am placing on said experiences.JediAvlnchfan (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)JediAvlnchfan

Recent deletion

I removed one huge bulk of unreferenced material. The topic is so general that the whole philosophy may be written into this page. Please stick to the strict subject with thorough referencing, per wikipedia rules. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that Lorem should have deleted such a large part of the article without first seeking the views of other editors first. — Philogos (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, what Lorem deleted (mostly the central questions section) doesn't seem to contain original research, which was the reason he gave for deletion. For example, obviously the determinism vs free will question isn’t an original question. Nothing mentioned under determinism vs free will was original research. If Lorem‘s issue was with lack of reference, it would have made a lot more sense for him to add citation or start a discussion rather than delete half of the article. Most of the deleted content was already referenced to notable authors, such as Plato, Spinoza, Parmenides, etc with links to their wikipages. I feel removing the central questions section will significantly detract from the usefulness of this article for those who aren’t already familiar with metaphysics. JonPF (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose we revert Lorem's deletion. Do other editors agree or disagree?— Philogos (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do. Lorem seems to want to link this topic with the "New Thought" "movement" which I think is completely inappropriate. We should start Metaphysics (esoterism) so as to avoid this nonsense.Greg Bard (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at New Thought where I am told

• New Thought is a spiritual movement that developed in the United States during the late 19th century and emphasizes metaphysical[1] beliefs.

On its own account this would make it irrelevant to this article, which is a philosophy not a religous article. I am not sure how Loren's desire to to link this topic with the "New Thought" "movement" is associated with his action in deleting half the article. Is it just vandalism? — Philogos (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No its good faith I'm sure. At some point he had a New Thought template on there.Greg Bard (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have "boldly" reverted the mass removal of material. There seems to be no support for it here, and at best such a drastic action should not have been taken without discussion. Note that as collateral damage I also incidentally reverted an edit by GregBard -- I have no objection to that edit, it just got in the way, and I know of no reason it should not be redone. (I won't redo it myself because I don't know anything about why it was done.) Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

About "Lorem seems to want to link this topic with..." - how did you arrive to this conclusion? Please read my comment literally. Let me rephrase. You may well cut and paste any piece from any wikipedia article about a fundamental issue and call it "metaphysics". Well, you may not. The thing is that

• first you have to find a reference which discusses this issue as metaphysical
• second, proving that the subject is within the scope of metaphysics, does not mean that you can write anything you want, from every source. You have to keep within the scope: you have to put here only specifically metaphysical discussions described as such in the source.

A good example is the section "Quantum Mechanics". I have no doubt that each and every statement there is verifiable. However I see not a single evidence provided that all this text is discussed by the "Metaphysics" which "is a branch of philosophy", of, more exactly, by philosophers-metaphysicists. The Original Research of my concern is attributing all deep philosophical thought to "metaphysics".

If you don't see my point, please continue further development of metaphysics in this page, I am not a threat of war. By the way, I am quite surprised that nobody takes an advantage of the text from Catholic Encyclopedia to make sense with this page, at least in the historical context. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

All of the content in the "Value and Future" section is negative. Does no one in the entire world still believe metaphysics is a worthwhile thing? I will try to find some people defending it, but surely someone else has something.

32.176.9.130 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Elementary study guides?

I am sorry, is anybody anywhere actually providing a basic course of Metaphysics as a real school discipline, like in an elementary school? I need a very elementary study guide to the basics of Metaphysics and metaphysical thinking (as opposed to dialectical or positivist thinking), in the shape of something like an ordinary school study-book (imagine a course-book on Arithmetic or, for instance, Music, or Logic in the elementary school). I mean, just a set of rules or introduction to specific methods, inherent for this discipline, which provide a new skill for the disciple and enable to solve new problems. (Most of all I am interested in the classical Christian Metaphysics of Middle Ages, as a specific scientific and cognitive method). Can anyone advise something like this? Because everything I found on the net seems to be either not differentiating Metaphysics from all other Philosophy, or just be a bunch of babble. Thank you in advance. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, (maybe the Anglican Church), will have what you're looking for, if anyone does.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia they don't, or probably anywhere. The history of phiolosophy is essentially an academic philosophical area, not a religious one. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of Saint Thomas Aquinas is official doctrine to this day. The theological elements in Aristotle's natural science are very isolated, so it was relatively easy to adopt (explicitly… compared to Neoplatonism for example). Theologians had to be expert natural philosophers and logicians for centuries, so there's a very consistent agreement between Thomistic/Aristotelian Metaphysics/Physics (Scholasticism) and theological doctrine. I was astonished when I discovered I could read Catholic; there's no shortage on WP. It is opaque… but they've had seven hundred years to sort out what's most accessible and how.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that comes close to "a very elementary study guide to the basics of Metaphysics and metaphysical thinking" on WP, nor does it probably belong here. He has now posted his request on the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, where he is likely to be disappointed. Actually The work of Saint Thomas Aquinas never has been, and is not now "official doctrine" at all - that's a much narrower term. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no danger of optimism. I didn't suggest that user cross post, and I didn't suggest that they'll find what they're looking for on WP. Did I? In response to your post, however, I remarked that there's quite a lot of opaque Scholasticism/St.T on WP (often in the same articles as Aristotle). I'm not a Catholic, I meant official doctrine, without quotes:

“The Catechism of the Council of Trent composed by disciples of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in convenient form for the use of parish priests… Within a short time after his death the writings of St. Thomas were universally esteemed. The Dominicans… in 1279 pronounced severe penalties against all who dared to speak irreverently of him or of his writings.… The "Summa" gradually supplanted the "Sentences" as the textbook of theology. Minds were formed in accordance with the principles of St. Thomas; he became the great master, exercising a world-wide influence on the opinions of men and on their writings; for even those who did not adopt all of his conclusions were obliged to give due consideration to his opinions. It has been estimated that 6000 commentaries on St. Thomas's works have been written. Manuals of theology and of philosophy, composed with the intention of imparting his teaching, translations, and studies, or digests (études), of portions of his works have been published in profusion during the last six hundred years and today his name is in honour all over the world… The principles of St. Thomas on the relations between faith and reason were solemnly proclaimed in the Vatican Council. The second, third, and fourth chapters of the Constitution "Dei Filius" read like pages taken from the works of the Angelic Doctor… In every one of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly honoured… The "Decretum pro Armenis" (Instruction for the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost verbatim from his treatise, "De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis"… "In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican", writes Leo XIII (Encyclical "Aeterni Patris"), "one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results."… But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have.” [1]

Not too shabby.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)