Talk:Metaphysics

Epistemological foundation

I'm not convinced we need this section. If we do, it is in serious need of cleaning up. It is way too brief, states a few falsehoods, and doesn't seem to be totally relevant at times. While it's entirely true that metaphysics, like all subjects, has an important dependence on epistemology, this dependence can probably be condensed into a single sentence or two for the purposes of this article, possibly even at the introduction. Yanssel (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary analytic subject vs others

Maybe there is a case for splitting this whole article in two: one about "Metaphysics, the current active area of academic research in Anglophile/analytic universities" and a second about "History of Metaphysics" or "Metaphysics around the world" or similar which would link to the first article and to others as many "schools" of metaphysics? What do people think? Has modern metaphysics made enough "progress" now that, like physics, we should only present the current best theory, and have separate pages about its history, alternatives and "mistakes"? Anglophile/analytic universities certainly think so nowadays, as they do for physics, but is there a difference? As an Anglophile/analytic person myself I am keen to have an article which is only about the "rigorous, technical, academic, progressing" research topic which we study here (mild irony possibly intended here of course) but am also very aware that other traditions exist and are equally important to those who follow them. (That could include "new-age" theories as well as continental philosophy, and all the historic and global schools in the article. In particular there is not enough on the present page about contemporary continental views, I don't know enough about them myself to write but I imagine there are a lot of them, and I would worry that they might not fit very well into the neat categories and subheadings of the analytic worldview.) Such a page split would be a Big Deal though and I am too invested in the analytic side myself to call it, so I guess we should discuss here instead ... thoughts anyone ?

Nope, Wikipedia does not take a position that some major academic views of metaphysics would be better than others. Just stick to views that are both major (notable) and academic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this fact! I wonder if we are OK with the present state then: we have (what I would consider to be) a mostly analytic view of the subject in the first half of the article, and then many different schools in the second half. Possibly: analytic philosophy has become much more of a true "meta" subject than the others (the etymological is completely coincidental but convenient), while, as far as I know, the continentals, new-agers, and many other global traditions, are more "applied" or "users" of those concepts. Analytics schools don't postulate grand systems of what the world is made of any more; they take such claimed system and analyse them, and/or provide the tools for the people who do psotulate such systems to do these checks for themselves. So as long as everyone is happy with that distinction then maybe we are OK. (I just worry that some continental post-hegelian or whatever will show up and rip apart our nice encyclopedic technical analyic subheadings and replace them with an argument that the world is made of cheese, or differeance, or something ... what would be wikipedia's view on that? Why should we ask them to keep such a view as a particular school rather than a definition of the whole subject ? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.71.14 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We present different views and we agree to disagree. In matters of metaphysics the consensus is that there can be no consensus. However, a distinction has to be made between academic metaphysics and New Age gurus who have smoked too much pot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Cut down philosophy of mind?

This section is out of proportion to the others; it already has a large page of its own, and it's arguably not much part of metaphysics in modern philosophy where it has spun out into its own field. Do we think it should be cut down a bit somehow ? (same goes for the other peripheral topics -- are these really part of "metaphysics" any more or are they their own subjects? can someone more knowledgeable than me on the philosophy community's definitions of such things please have a look and an edit perhaps ? )

The nature of matter was a problem in its own right in early philosophy. Aristotle himself introduced the idea of matter in general to the Western world, adapting the term hyle, which originally meant "lumber." Early debates centered on identifying a single underlying principle. Water was claimed by Thales, air by Anaximenes, Apeiron (the Boundless) by Anaximander, fire by Heraclitus. Democritus, in conjunction with his mentor, Leucippus, conceived of an atomic theory some 24 centuries before it was accepted by modern science. It is worth noting, however, that the grounds necessary to ensure validity to the proposed theory's veridical nature were not scientific, but just as philosophical as those traditions espoused by Thales and Anaximander.

The nature of the mind and its relation to the body has been seen as more of a problem as science has progressed in its mechanistic understanding of the brain and body. Proposed solutions often have ramifications about the nature of mind as a whole. René Descartes proposed substance dualism, a theory in which mind and body are essentially different, with the mind having some of the attributes traditionally assigned to the soul, in the seventeenth century. This creates a conceptual puzzle about how the two interact (which has received some strange answers, such as occasionalism). Evidence of a close relationship between brain and mind, such as the Phineas Gage case, have made this form of dualism increasingly unpopular.

Another proposal discussing the mind–body problem is idealism, in which the material is sweepingly eliminated in favor of the mental. Idealists, such as George Berkeley, claim that material objects do not exist unless perceived and only as perceptions. The "German idealists" such as Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer took Kant as their starting-point, although it is debatable how much of an idealist Kant himself was. Idealism is also a common theme in Eastern philosophy. Related ideas are panpsychism and panexperientialism, which say everything has a mind rather than everything exists in a mind. Alfred North Whitehead was a twentieth-century exponent of this approach.

Idealism is a monistic theory which holds that there is a single universal substance or principle. Neutral monism, associated in different forms with Ernst Mach, William James, Bertrand Russell, the adherents of American New Realism, Moritz Schlick, A.J. Ayer and others, seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid the problems of substance dualism. It is unlike the double aspect theory in claiming that existence consists of a single substance that in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes – thus it implies a dual-aspect theory. Neutral monism merely claims that everything, either physical or mental, can be constructed out of neutral elements, though not necessarily the same ones.

For the last one hundred years, the dominant metaphysics has without a doubt been materialistic monism. Type identity theory, token identity theory, functionalism, reductive physicalism, nonreductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, anomalous monism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism and emergence are just some of the candidates for a scientifically informed account of the mind. (It should be noted that while many of these positions are dualisms, none of them are substance dualism.)

Prominent recent philosophers of mind include David Armstrong, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, Fred Dretske, Douglas Hofstadter, Roger Lyness, Jerry Fodor, David Lewis, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, John Searle, John Smart, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Fred Alan Wolf.

OK I have gone ahead and done this -- please discuss on the talk page before reverting if you have a reason for keeping this section so much longer than all the others. Please help to merge the above text into the philosophy of mind page too, it is good well written text and we do want to keep it, just in the right place rather than this page.

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)."

More importantly, irresponsible use

It is more effective to *describe Kant's (or most philosophers') modus operandi than try to label pretentiously.

• Kant derives the necessity of noumena's existence from a synthetic apriori proposition .

Not only does this formulation convey Kant's grounds of the assertion, it closes one's distance and does away with the problematic aspect of those contingent phrases.

Byron mocked metaphysics in his work

What source was this found in?

Spam

Rakrsu13 is a WP:SPA, has a WP:COI and fails WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP with a WP:SPS source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is a WP:SPA, has a WP:COI and fails WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP with a WP:SPS source. Rakrsu13 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Provide evidence for your claims or shut up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I already provided that you are under prejudice and disrupting my additions to the wiki page metaphysics. Who are you to make a decision while you haven't an evidence that you read the added book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Independently published" is that the name of a respectable publishing house? As far as I can understand it, it is an admission that your own work is self-published and therefore does not belong inside Wikipedia. Also, read WP:NPA: we do not like editors who claim that others are prejudiced without providing evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Independently published is self published by the author of the book, Your decisions are based on assumptions and prejudice. Your actions in removing my edits, without actually reading the book makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No, my decisions are based upon policies and guidelines, not on prejudice. You will have to make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have some further questions (see the discussion at WP:RSN)... but for now... I have moved the mention of this book to the "Further reading" section... the "Bibliography" section is for sources that are actually cited in the article, and this one is not. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of word metaphysics

The etymology given here is wrong. You can check any good etymological dictionary or look here (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

The word referes to various smaller selections of Aristotle’s works that assembled after his death that were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (Τα φυσικά/ ta phusika/ = 'Physics'). So Metaphysics means after the 'Physics' book [Μετά τα φυσικά / meta ta phusika]. Its a common misconception. You can see also in the relative wikipedia article.

Vardos (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

What you added is good and should stay there once all the typos are corrected. But the etymology that was there is also correct literally from the Greek. You can look meta- in the English Wiktionary and you will see it. So the lead has to be edited now so it includes the previously existing literal meaning of the expression or composite word, plus the new material you added explained how it came about. I will try to do that now. Thank you for the improvement in this article. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, μετά means "after". According to the OED:

The supposed an analogy of Metaphysics (misapprehended as meaning 'the science of that which transcends the physical') has been followed in the practice of prefixing meta- to the name of a science to form a designation for a higher science (actual of hypothetical) of the same nature but dealing with ulterior and more fundamental problems.

I suggest that Wikipedia should not be perpetuating misapprehensions. Peter Brown (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your quotes above must contain typos because "The supposed an analogy of..." does not make sense. In the parenthesis there is certainly a typo, as it should read (actual OR hypothetical). I don't see any strong contradictions between the plain Greek meaning of "after" and the "beyond" being used in the article. Aristotle apparently did not know the word himself, but it is clear that philosophy after him has understood it really as "beyond." But if you want to be a stickler be my guest. Go ahead and correct both the Wiktionary and the article as you see fit. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct about the typos. 'apparenty' is a typo of yours. So we're not perfect. I don't think I'm being a "stickler", though, to be concerned about the perpetuation of misapprehensions. I am changing the lead accordingly. Peter Brown (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about how User:Vardos has made these adjustments around Wikipedia all based on only one online tertiary source, and only on a speculative comment in the introductory paragraph of that source. ("The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum.") This passing comment seems to be a bit misleading about classical Greek. But anyway Wikipedia seems to be taking it much further than justified? Do we have any other source or any evidence that there is any peer-reviewed article, book publication, etc, by this author, or any other authors? Or is there only this one comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the quote from OED, so to explain further: removing the word "beyond" or "transcending" seems acceptable, but meta can for example mean "behind" and it is clear from the Metaphysics itself, that it is about "first things" meaning "first causes", or, as it explains in detail, the un-seen causes of everyday natural cause and effect (physics) which is directly experienced. "Behind" fits well in that context, giving an obvious possible reason for the word. So, the speculation from the Stanford website about it being an editorial decision about a study course still seems weakly-sourced, and exaggerated in its certainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to this matter here. I agree with you. Furthermore, there is no contradiction whatsoever between "behind" and "beyond," and so I still stand by my initial comment above, that just the initial addition of the Greek editor did not need to remove the original content that was already there. It was also longstanding, uncontroversial content. I am sure that quotes about it can be found, since the "beyond" understanding is a given of philosophy for a very long time, at least since the Greek editing of Aristotle's Metaphysics. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Change first sentence

-Change first sentence from: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality.

-Change first sentence to: Metaphysics is the "first" branch of philosophy that examines "Being" the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality. Ref. Wiki. Arnlodg (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change adds no value and just confuses things if anything -----Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Metaphysics value is as a table of contents for all of philosophy, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: "Being" in quotes will be confusing to general readers, and what does "...the "first" branch of philosophy that examines Being" even mean? The first chronologically? Does this imply there are other branches of philosophy that examine "Being"? What are they? Gibberish. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

These two changes were meant to be small but exact changes...Your "What does it even mean'-Metaphysics is about-Who am I?... Yes, it is chronologically the first branch of philosophy and the first branch of philosophy is about being and there are many other branches and ontology would be the best place to begin then check out metaphysics, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding the origins of your own proposal. Metaphysics started with Aristotle who called it First Philosophy, but he did NOT mean this chronologically, and it would have been incorrect if he did. Greek philosophers of his time, reported that the first philosophers many generations earlier were philosophers of nature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the pre-Socratics. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

-Wikipedia has many many articles concerning understanding Philosophy and Nature; such as Metaphysical naturalism; linked and referenced 'relationship' in lead sentence and third paragraph, check it out, thanks... Arnlodg (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References