Talk:Metaphysics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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?

Unhelpful list

The "Notable metaphysicians and critics of metaphysics" list should be broken into two lists. As it stands, it's not very helpful if there's no distinction between the metaphysicians and their critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

re: ==physics intro==

No offense, but if you can't figure any differences out between physics and metaphysics, you lack the expertise to edit the physics page. The page is more than fine, I just looked at it. Probably one of the better intro pages.

Read Sir James Jeans Physics and Philosophy, Reichenbach's Philosophy of Space and Time, Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, Aristotle's Metaphysics, Plato's Phaedo, Plotinus's Enneads, and Popper's Open Society and its Enemies. Then consider the differences. There are LOTS. And that's just in the Western Philosophical Tradition. The most important difference is of course methodological. One employs falsifiable criteria, the other doesn't. Ever notice how you can't test for "being" or (more precisely) its opposite as formulated in philosophy, but you can test (and disprove)the Higgs Boson? Yeah, that. It's a pretty big difference. People generally don't understand the scientific method. Try an intro to experimental psych textbook if you're interested in learning more about how the scientific method and falsifiability work. I'm partial to Schweigert's Research Methods in Psychology, myself.

Guinness4life (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Siva1979^{Talk 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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???

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)

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)

Recent attempts to re-work article

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)

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)

Reichenbach. How is he not in this section? For the love of God. Who wrote this article? Do they have any background in philosophy? How you can mention the Philosophy of Space and Time without him baffles me.

Guinness4life (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links: ways of seeing

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

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)

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)

FYI, Metaphysics with practical applications isn't Metaphysics. Notice the "Meta-", it means "beyond", more or less. Her "great contribution" showed a fundamental ignorance of Greek. Also, even if it was practical (which is the realm of natural science and not metaphysics), her fame rests primarily on her pseudoscience/religion and not her badly reasoned theology system (which is almost purely analogical). By the way, regarding that pseudoscience/religion, every study of Principia College Grads shows they have mortality and morbidity rates significantly higher than a control group, so so much for that practical application you were talking about, unless killing people early was the desired real world activity.

Theology is not philosophy. A brief though highly imperfect analogy regarding disciplines and God - Theology starts with the existence of God (through revelation) and works its way down to what we know. Philosophy starts with reason a priori (what we see, what we hear, what we know), and works its way up to God.

Oh, by the way watered-down theological Pan-psychism (everything is the God-mind, no matter) like what Christian Science pitches has a problem. How do we distinguish between things and individuals and how can I distinguish between thoughts that are mine and that aren't? What's the difference between a chair and a person if matter doesn't exist? What is the nature of appearances? If all the world is thought and God is good, isn't all that exists good because it is an extension of God? So, what is evil? Is the world God-thought or man-thought. Think about it.

There is also the more fundamental problem - to be out of harmony with the God-mind implies the ability to be out of harmony with the God-mind which implies being outside of it, which negates the premise that all is the God-mind, and leads us either to determine immanence or absence in matter or presence of the human mind in addition to the God-mind and ample new problems. You might want to read Plato's Phaedo and Plotinus, they had a much better idea of how to work out something like this. Some of the Taoists may be of interest, too.

Pray tell, I'd really like to hear the "Quantum Theories" that Christian Science anticipated. Apparently, of late, every historical figure was either Autistic or predicted some major scientific turn in "Quantum Theory".

Did it turn out that physiology was "one of the apples from the tree of knowledge"? Or did it turn out that "Disease being a belief, a latent illusion of mortal mind, the sensation would not appear if the error of belief was met and destroyed by truth." Gee, I can see all that being scientifically proven (cites from Science and Health Chapter VII). I can't say I remember any of that in Hawking's new book.

Why not edit the Christian Science religion page? It's very poorly sourced. Your efforts would probably be more appreciated. You seem to know a bit more about Christian Science than metaphysics.

Guinness4life (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

explain this sentence please?

"It appears that fundamental laws are time-reversible and the arrow of time must be an 'emergent' phenomenon, perhaps explained by thermodynamics."

So far as I can tell, to say that the "arrow of time" is "explained by thermodynamics" is to say nothing. A bit like saying that the evolution of mammals is explained by paleontology. And to add "perhaps" to such a non-statement is to make it even worse. What's going on here? --Christofurio 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this ? Do you think it is a fair summary of the main article? Do you think the main article is incomprehensible too? 1Z 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, but it doesn't really resolve my problem. I understand in a general way that thermodynamics has a classical form and a statistical form, and that the understanding one has of the arrow of time will differ dependingh on which form one thinks best describes the world. Is that it? The above sentence seems to think that "thermodynamics" itself is an answer, rather than just a re-statement of the problem. --Christofurio 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why thermodynamics would be considered a "restatement of the problem". It indicates that certain trajectories in state-space will be statistically preferred, thus introducing an asymmetry. The only criticism I know of is that another asymmetry is also needed, ie a low-entropy starting state.1Z 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Entropy (arrow of time) is a fuller statement of the issue.1Z 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to fix the passage a bit with that in mind. --Christofurio 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

id think to point out something involving the nature of metaphysics being directly related to not only our phyisical forms but the form of all things contained within enviromental exposure on each level of interaction expanding as time bears affect as this the fact that life on earth like anyother is still trying to grasp things directly contained within itself,(the nature of self understanding) so a good thing to do would be to expand on geograpical understanding,as well as inate interactions,origin and unavoidable end.metageography,unavoidable biosystems. and just one thing because its worth saying,ununderstanding nature represents itself in the question,connection designates... we dont know ourselves.

Notable Metaphysicians

Anyone have any thoughts on the addition of Bernard Lonergan to the list of notable metaphysicians? Since Augustine, Aquinas are listed and Lonergan is clearly in this trajectory of Catholic philosophers, I thought he would be a good addition to the list. His work is well-regarded in 20th century philosophy, he certainly has the credentials, and I think many would agree he made highly significant contributions to metaphysics by extending the core ideas of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas forward in the areas of cognitional theory, epistemology and verifiable metaphysics based on the "data of consciousness" and his study of methodology in mathematics and empirical science. see Insight: A study of Human Understanding. There are Lonergan Centers at Boston College, University of Toronto, Seton Hall, and Loyola Marymount University devoted to studying and extending his works in philosophy and theology. I'm quite sure nearly every philosophy professor at any Jesuit schools would consider his work "notable".

My attempt at this addition was reverted as "not particularly notable as a metaphysician" so thought I would throw it out there. --Myles P Dempsey Jr 08:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are 1000s of people who follow in the footsteps of Aquinas, etc, that is hardly a citerion for notability. Leading would be better. 1Z 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Lanergan more notable than Teilhard de Chardin? Is he the most notable Jesuit philosopher? 1Z 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As a metaphysician I think many would consider him as important as any philosopher of the 20th century, Jesuit or not. His work Insight is well worth careful study but beware it is notoriously difficult for those uncomfortable with mathematics and physics. There is much to commend but in particular you might find his distinction between the abstract and concrete intelligibility of space and time (i.e. relativistic physics vs. the grounding of emergent probability) a fascinating application of his general development of the complementarity of classical and statistical heuristic structures.

An interesting article in Time magazine [1] going back to 1970 indicates that even prior to his death his work was considered groundbreaking by many of his contemporaries from all schools of philosophical thought, enough that many spent a week discussing his ideas.

I do appreciate your feedback and interest in this topic.--Myles P Dempsey Jr 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I started in physics before developing an interest in philosophy, and I have never hear dof him i that connection either. 1Z 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"CANADIAN Jesuit Bernard J.F. Lonergan is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century." So much for Wittgenstein! 1Z 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wittgenstein? You're joking! He said something like "all metaphysics is nonsense" and he meant it. As a neo-positivist, he thought that metaphysics equals if not mental delusions, then something as meaningless as bad poetry. So he cannot possibly count as a metaphysician. (In a perverse kind of way, neo-positivism is a metaphysic.) I guess the most notable metaphysician of the 20th century is Whitehead or Heidegger; some people think that Strawson is comparable to them. Although, Heidegger would have been horrified by such misnomer. In Heidegger's work metaphysics is treated with mixed emotions: on one side as the most noble human occupation and as the noble and most refined part of philosophy and theology, and on the other side, metaphysics stays for all that is bad in philosophy and in the world. So, metaphysics to Heidegger means something of both God and the Devil. Metaphysics is responsible for domination of the Gestell, and Heidegger thought that the real fall of mankind is falling prey to the Gestell. Although similar to Eve's and Adam's fall into temptation, as in the Bible, it does not have a moral value (or moralistic connotation), in Heidegger's thinking. He sees it as beyond good and evil, and if not as necessary then at least as the natural consequence of the inherent human fallibility, producing fallible philosophic theories, which, by cummulation of thinking errors, get from bad to worse (he acknowledges that these thinking errors have an intrinsic greatness, or philosophic titanism). Basically, Heidegger sides with Parmenides and Heraclites, and he sees their natural successor (Plato) as already falling prey to the Gestell, through employing the word truth as having two meanings, namely Aletheia and Orthotes. (Heidegger considered that there is no real difference between the theories of Heraclites, Parmenides and Plato.) I will add a citation (reference) somewhat later. Tgeorgescu 15:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference is: M. Heidegger, Einführung in die Metaphysik, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1953, 4. Auflage 1976, pp. 105-106. Tgeorgescu 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was in response to the claim that Lonergan is the most notable philosopher or the 20th century. Moreover anti-metaphysics counts as far as the article is concerned. 1Z 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I thought it was in the context of discussing the most notable metaphysicians. Tgeorgescu 10:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No Ibn 'Arabi? This article feels very Western-centric, but I think he is notable enough to be included unless we are sticking to solely Western philosophers here.

Sounds reasonable.1Z 09:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I might as well add Nietzsche to the list if you're going to put Wittgenstein and Heidegger on there, since the Wikipedia article on Heidegger says: "Heidegger read 'The Will to Power' as the culminating expression of Western metaphysics". Ok? - 62.158.94.29 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between metaphysics and physics

I would like to comment on This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical.": Arguably, metaphysics is an extension of physics (or natural science), a broader kind of physics, which considers not only the physical world, but also the soul and spiritual worlds (if they are considered to exist). E.g., Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom and his related texts (on Goethe's method and on knowledge theory) seek to apply the method of natural sciences to the realm of spiritual activity. See http://www.rsarchive.org/Books/ and look for GA2, GA3 and GA4. At this time, it is strange to talk of the method of natural sciences, but perhaps in Steiner's time it made sense, due to the growing popularity of positivism. Tgeorgescu 15:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably": Well, if you can find a good reference for the argument, it can go into the article. However, the fact that metaphysics did not originalyl mean "beyond physics" is already well attested. 1Z 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not know if I can prove it, but I am able to illustrate it: Tgeorgescu 10:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The cover page of The Philosophy of Freedom says Some results of introspective observation following the methods of Natural Science. See http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_index.html Tgeorgescu 10:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner was a metaphysician in both meanings of the term: (i) an original thinker dedicated to scholarly philosophy (ii) something close to a guru (meaning more than spiritually counselling some disciples, because as C.G. Jung says, in the Hindu culture is perfectly normal to have a guru who died 400 years ago -- a guru that one only meets in his writings, and perhaps in one's dreams). Rudolf Steiner's philosophy is not the kind of spirit-met-psychic craps which fills the New Age shops. He was a highly educated scholar, and he wrote abstract philosophical works which have not received the proper recognition inside the history of philosophy, because philosophy scholars are blinded in this respect by his writings due to clairvoyance (which is considered a patent fraud in that community). In fact, his writings due to clairvoyance are even more abstract than his philosophical writings, because there is a long tradition (and therefore it is convenient) to think in philosophic ideas, while in the other kind of writings he asks people to have a representation of beings whose body is made of warmth, who were once living on Saturn (by Saturn he does not mean the planet Saturn, but a former incarnation of the Earth). I have to say that I'm neither his adept nor his advocate. I only state the merrits he objectively has: Steiner's empirical idealism is an elegant way of making sense of the Platonic metaphysical tradition. Tgeorgescu 10:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inside the study of Western esotericism (Hermetical studies, part of religion studies), there is being studied a current of thinking called New Age science. People like Fritjof Capra and Rupert Sheldrake try to produce a synthesis between contemporary scientific research and Eastern metaphysical ideas. So, definitely, they wrote their studies as if Eastern metaphysical ideas were the natural philosophic conclusion of the (more or less) recent discoveries of quantum mechanics and primatology. Namely, they say that the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview is totally inadequate for intellectually coping with the discoveries of conteporary scientific research. The Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time are dead and burried since Einstein. Quantum mechanics shows that quanta behave totally diferent from macroscopic objects (Schroedinger's cat is a classical example in this matter): they don't obey the principle of identity (because a quantum may turn instantly into a spray of other quanta and almost immediately recompose the original quantum), they have no definite place (non-localization), and they are definitely no small balls of matter, but perhaps concentrations of energy. Tgeorgescu 10:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying this I notice, odd enough, that Rudolf Steiner was an adversary of atomism (the idea that matter is made of mollecules and atoms). I wonder how educated anthroposophers account for the discoveries of quantum mechanics (e.g. atom bomb). Not that Steiner did not make allusion about a terrible force of destruction which could be unleashed by dabbling in the mirror planes (meaning some nasty metaphysical realms). Tgeorgescu 10:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some New-Agers call new-age beliefs metaphysics, some are interested in academic metaphysics, and some are interested in science. These facts don't really add up to the claim that metaphysics just is the discipline that goes beyond science. 1Z 13:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Science

I think that this page does not adequately discuss the relationship between metaphysics and science. In particular, I think this page ought to mention the ways in which certain scientific research is guided by metaphysical (and fundamentally non-scientific) assumptions about the nature of the world, the nature of causality, etc. EA Burtt explores this in his classic "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science". In a more modern sense, this issue is particularly relevant to debates over reductionism and holism in science, especially as they pertain to complex systems exhibiting emergence. Robert Ulanowicz explores these issues in depth in his writing as well. I may make some edits along these lines if I can figure out how to do it...I'd appreciate it if someone who knew more about the topic would give some input however. Cazort 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Systems Theory

I would like to promote the idea that a notion of systems theory could generalize metaphysics and physics. The reason I say this is because both attempt to create models of worlds. So I think the important distinction as stated many times in the main article, is the difference between objects that we observe and objects that we concieve of (but can not observe), which form physical and conceptual systems respectively. And central to this is the fact that a throry of objects which we observe, i.e. physics, is a system that we concieve of, i.e. a departure from obervation.

conceptual_systems

physical_systems

Meta-system

systems

objects

Conceptual_object

Physical_object

Ratjed 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Universal science or first philosophy treats of "being qua being"...?

The sentence

Universal science or first philosophy treats of "being qua being" — that is, what is basic to all science before one adds the particular details of any one science.

is ungrammatical, and I don't understand it well enough to understand what it is trying to say. Assuming that what comes after the dash is a secondary clause, the entire sentence reads "X treats of Y", which makes no sense. If we add a dash after "that is, what is basic to all science," making it a parenthetical statement, it still makes no sense. Anyone want to try and correct it? — Max. 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysician? Metaphysicist?

Wouldn't a student/professional of metaphysics be a metaphysicist instead of a metaphysician? It seems that metaphysics is an extension of physics, and not an extension of medicine (since physician comes from the physic, meaning a medicine, while physics comes from physical and the like). Or is the official term the metaphysician? Eridani (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There may be no logic to the usage, but it is well established. 1Z (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein references missing?

I was reading over the article and found it strange that there is practically no mention of the early Tractatus-era Wittgenstein in the metaphysics section (yes, his "objects" are about as metaphysical as you can get), nor is there mention of his later Philosophical Investigations-era critiques of many of the metaphysical problems listed in the article, particular over the Mind, Identity, Objects, and Mathematics (especially in "Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics"). Would it be ok if I added a small portion on this, given that he was incredibly influential in 20th century philosophy? Candace Cleary (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Crack POV

More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been employed by non-philosophers to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells esoteric books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics which the philosophic pursuit of metaphysics generally does not include. has it? where? when ? by whom? in what reliable sources? why is this fringe use of the term given such WP:undue. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the term does seem to have devolved, particularly in America, in the last century or so. With theoreticians in various areas of esoteric work applying the term to themselves and their work, completely out of proper context. This, I suppose, is to lend more implied validity to their work/shops/etc. A google search will show the wide distribution of this usage. [2] is provided as an example. Perhaps this should be mentioned as a small portion of the article, however I would think it should be pointed out that it is a term in misuse in these cases. I'm curious as to how this came about and when (etymonline doesn't mention that modern deviation). Der.Gray (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

E H Carr

has been added to the list of noted metaphysicians, but according to his wiki article he wrote nothing on metaphysics or have I missed soemthing?--Philogo 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising ground people!

External links: removed the ANNOYING triple bolded "the largest metaphysical community on the web" the nerve of people! Wikipedia isn't a advertising ground :|

Jeez. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable metaphysicians and critics of metaphysics

An indiscriminate list of people, those lists tend to grow and grow and grow because no objective criteria for inclusion are given, and they serve no purpose than a category doesn't, though they do clutter an article. Notable people related to the subject are already naturally mentioned in the body of the article. These lists also tend to stay only because people do not dare remove bulky content, so I'll be bold and dispose of it. Equendil Talk 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Objects and their properties

The following suggests that Love and the number three are particulars:

The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as love and the number 3. Such objects are called particulars.

Should it not say Such The former objects are called particulars. --Philogo 12:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysical Poets

Is it worth including a link to - or even a small section on - the Metaphysical Poets to show their relationship (if any) to metaphysics? AncientBrit (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. --Philogo 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? If, as the Wikipedia article says, they shared an interest in metaphysical concerns and a common way of investigating them, then surely they are relevant, even if they did not at the time call themselves metaphysical poets? AncientBrit (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the meaning of the term metaphysics in the name "metaphysical poets" isn't related to the term metaphysics as described in this article. Verbal chat 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see that they have anything in common other than the word, first applied to certain poets by apperently Samuel Johnson, and adding material here available at Metaphysical poets would not, I should think, improve this article (nor vice versa). To my best lnowledge the so called metaphsiocal poets did not say much worthy of note regarding metaphysics. If anyone can cite soem references indicating to the contrary they are of course free to do so. Perhasp we a "not to be confused with" or "see also " link to Metaphysical poets would be helpful, but this an enclopedia not a dictionary --Philogo 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind one way or the other, but I would point out that dictionaries don't tend to have "not to be confused with X" entries, whereas encyclopaedias do, and from an ontological POV (entity relationships rather than characteristics of being) there is a connection between the two uses of "metaphysical".AncientBrit (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

move from top

I moved the following from the top to avoid seeming partiality. The fact that the branch of phil is derived from name given to a work of Aristotle is worth mentioning but not appropriately at the top. I can't think of any reason to all to give such prominence to Avicenna.

For Aristotle's work, see Metaphysics (Aristotle). For Avicenna's work, see Avicennism. --Philogo 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, this is disambiguation. It's so readers who come here looking for the book called Metaphysics know where to go. Nothing to do with "partiality". the skomorokh 21:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were a disambiguity issue it should be on a disambiguation page, but there must be hundreds of books called 'metaphysics' and we would not wuch to give a redirect for readers to articke by author for each and every one. Think about it, how many books called "Physics", "Chemistry", "Philisophy", "Bilogy", "Sex", "Gardening"; redirects to all at top of each article? --Philogo 00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Hume's Criticism

The line after Hume's criticism in the Criticism section is: "Hume's assertion is self-defeating if it itself is not self-evident or empirically verifiable."

This is eather wrong or needs a ton of development since the Hume quote blatantly directs one to survay the contents of a book which blatantly constitutes gathering empirical data about it.

That being said i think this criticism of hume could be referring to his devaluing of metaphysics but the idea that "metaphysics is not valuable" because X is falsifiable in that should a bit of metaphysics exist that does not posses X then the idea is wrong.

In eather case the line i quoted above is a bit ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.38.60 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Hume's Criticism

The line after Hume's criticism in the Criticism section is: "Hume's assertion is self-defeating if it itself is not self-evident or empirically verifiable."

This is eather wrong or needs a ton of development since the Hume quote blatantly directs one to survay the contents of a book which blatantly constitutes gathering empirical data about it.

That being said i think this criticism of hume could be referring to his devaluing of metaphysics but the idea that "metaphysics is not valuable" because X is falsifiable in that should a bit of metaphysics exist that does not posses X then the idea is wrong.

In eather case the line i quoted above is a bit ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.38.60 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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 argued, most say,that metaphysical questions had no answers that matched any "reality' we know as human beings. His "metaphysics" argued that such answers were just 'forms of life'that humans lived within.

I think this article needs the awareness that any known traditional philosopher's answers to metaphysical questions, falls under Metaphysics in this encyclopedic sense, even if said philosopher argued against 'classical' metaphysical answers (and even questions). This sense of a philosophical tradition seems necessary to a wikipedia entry of quality. [[User: MKohut68.162.181.202 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC) ]]

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.

To the above: in the history, I deleted this post as it cites no sources, and uses multiple personal attacks. However, I undid the deletion and will leave it to a more experienced editor to decide its relevancy. 09:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.250 (talk)

Heidegger? Bergson? Metaphysics outside Europe? Persistent Process bias.

This is one of the worst pages on wiki. It's flagrantly slanted towards Aristotelian "being" ontology and against process/"becoming" ontology. It starts in the classical age without even a mention of Heraklitus!

There's not one citation of Heidegger on the page. Love him or hate him, he's the most influential voice in 20th century Metaphysics and Ontology. That's a tad bit of a metaphysical oversight. Bergson is another big one. None too surprisingly, also process oriented. Heads up - besides their major works they both wrote extremely influential books called "What is Metaphysics?". It's fairly likely undergraduate readers encountering these books will check wikipedia and subsequently be baffled when they find a metaphysics nothing like what they're reading about.

There's also the fairly suspect absence of Schopenhaeur. While he's generally relegated primarily to aesthetics by philosophy departments, he is extremely significant in ontology. Of course, again, he's anything but Aristotelian and certainly not "being" oriented.

Also, there's no listing of any of the great Russian metaphysicians like Berdyaev and Soloviev. Granted I wouldn't expect someone who isn't familiar with Russian culture to know about the great Russian philosophers (which is unfortunate), but a footnote might be nice.

Also, there's all of Asia. Their influence on metaphysics, even Western Metaphysics, was huge, especially in the processual ontology (Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger, etc) of the last 100 years. The Buddhism pages on wiki are generally excellent, we may want to link to some of them (e.g. Nagarjuna). The Taoism pages are not generally particularly good, and are cluttered with New Age nonsense but some are satisfactory. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, in particular, are important Taoist figures in metaphysics. There's also the modern era in Japan - with Kakuzo Okakura, the Kyoto school, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor revision

I'm adding a brief correction to the history section, which begins with a later thinker Parmenides, rather than Thales as a firs philosopher and Aristotle's first predecessor in the subject of metaphysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noqoilpi (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Long comment in Criticism section

The following long, editorially confusing and unsigned comment was rm'd from the Criticism section:

Funny enough, this is how it would have had to have been. C.S. Lewis argues in his great work, The Abolition of Man, that you cannot reach the a first principle by way of concluding. First Principles are premises. Further, any attempt to use reason to find a first principle would be futile. The first principles are prior to reason, and something can only be reasonable insomuch as it corresponds with reality, or, the first principles. "If nothing is self evident, nothing can be proved." Similarly, if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." Lewis explains the unexplainable:

"you cannot go on explaining away forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on seeing through things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to see through first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To see through all things is the same as not to see."

The philosophy of Yin and Yang is another analogy. For light to exist, darkness must also exist (to some degree). Without the existence of both in some proportion, neither one may exist. The very meaning of light implies the existence of darkness and vice versa. You cannot have a left without a right, or a good with no evil. They are opposites of the same pole, so existence of one is essentially "hardwired" into the existence of the other, through definition. But just as there are direct opposites, there are varying degrees between opposites. For example Hot, warm, lukewarm, cold, icy cold, etc. Additionally, our individual, personalized, perceptions of these concepts vary virtually infinitely from person to person. What is hot to me, may not be hot to you. Truth is not absolute in nature, in fact it's actually very dynamic in nature across a 4-dimensional universe. It really is all relative.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Important remark

Below I reproduce that part of the definition by OED of Metaphysics that directly challenges the statements in the second paragraph of the main text (please in particular note the remarks with regard to the prefix meta in metaphysics). I believe that in view of the following details, the pertinent part of the main text must be corrected, naturally giving the appropriate source for the corrected version (which could be Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2009):

metaphysics, n. pl.

(mɛtəˈfɪzɪks)

[pl. of metaphysic n., repr. med.L. metaphysica (neut. pl.), med.Gr. (τὰ) µεταϕυσικά (neut. pl.), an alteration of the older τὰ µετὰ τὰ ϕυσικά, ‘the (works) after the Physics’ (cf. meta- and physics), the title applied, at least from the 1st century A.D., to the 13 books of Aristotle dealing with questions of ‘first philosophy’ or ontology.

This title doubtless originally referred (as some of the early commentators state) to the position which the books so designated occupied in the received arrangement of Aristotle's writings (τὰ ϕυσικά being used to signify, not the particular treatise so called, but the whole collection of treatises relating to matters of natural science). It was, however, from an early period used as a name for the branch of study treated in these books, and hence came to be misinterpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’. This misinterpretation is found, though rarely, in Greek writers, notwithstanding the fact that µετά does not admit of any such sense as ‘beyond’ or ‘transcending’. In scholastic Latin writers the error was general (being helped, perhaps, by the known equivalence of the prefixes meta- and trans- in various compounds); and in English its influence is seen in the custom, frequent down to the 17th c., of explaining metaphysical by words like ‘supernatural’, ‘transnatural’, etc.]

© Oxford University Press 2009

Please note that the above quotation is strict copyrighted material and must therefore not be reproduced elsewhere. --BF 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The above is substantially as stated at this Etymology Online item. Unless someone can point to a better ref, the footnote should be changed. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ted Honderich

The article implies that Ted Honderich is an incompatibilist about free will and determinism. He isn't. He thinks he's resolved the tension between compatibilism and incompatibilism. Themoabird (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia

Knowing the difference when you're wishing away, or not. Metaphysics hasn't been translated efficiently since the urban mystics in Germany over half a century ago. They had their own networks, privately built, with special made equiptment. Presently, attempting to create updated system, similar to designs there are no plans for, yet can be read about. Mystics were known in Germany, and many organizations were exposed and dissolved during WWII. History of Metaphysics, 20th Century75.204.137.66 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (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)

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)

Eurocentric orientation

Just like the epistemology article, this one has nothing on non-western metaphysics. Why? Let's fix this! :)

Here's a couple resources to get the ball moving:

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/
• http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/Metaphysics%20of%20Dao%20doc.htm

Dan Cottrell (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you can find credible sources positive to metaphysics, by all means ad them. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not all negative, as it includes material from Hawley, Koyré, and Lakatos. Perhaps the negative is given undue weight. Certainly, there should be more positive references and the section should be reorganized so that it is apparent that there are two sides to the matter. Also, the word "Future" should not appear in the heading, as there is no relevant discussion. Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2012 (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.” [3]

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

Definition Itself As were Explained

Definition of any term bring us to the right understanding that is very basic and enough to be accepted.When we're already passed and past by more explanations and details then all the facts will be noted as definition itself. Why we need to push on classic term if it cannot be translated, but you can do correct interpretation within the medium that is what we called revelation115.133.168.230 (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC) harik

Dubious statement in the lede

A statement has been deleted and then restored. The statement is "The study of metaphysics is rejected by natural science." I have some objections to it: natural science can be mostly an empirical-analytical endeavor, based upon falsificationism, but it does not reject metaphysics since (i) scientists may hold any metaphysical and/or theological view (ii) Einstein's rejection of absolute space and time is a form of metaphysics which is based upon empirical science, i.e. a form of metaphysics which leads to testable (falsifiable) conclusions. The restored statement is thus misleading. It is not empirical science which rejects the study of metaphysics, but some philosophers are rejecting it, speaking in their quality of being philosophers and thus such rejection is not part of empirical science. The statement "Natural science allows for no metaphysics." is false because as stated above Einstein did both metaphysics and empirical science inside his theory of relativity. I suggest that such false conclusion be removed from the lede, or at least being transformed in a NPOV statement as "Some philosophers of science, such as the neopositivists, reject the study of metaphysics." This statement reflects the views of such philosophers and refrains from stating as a fact the false claim that natural science rejects metaphysics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is a summary of the last section of the article. For the sentence to be wrong, either the last section is wrong, or it has been wrongly summarized. Metaphysics is based on a priori reasoning and by it's nature untestable. Natural science is based on a posteriori reasoning and by its nature testability. The rejection of a priori reasoning is the very essence of empirical science.

As for your example, Einstein's theory of relative space and time was based on mathematical calculations, and the theory had testable consequences. As an untested theory it could by, by stretching definitions, it could possibly argued that it at least bordered on metaphysics. With calculation of empirical consequences and testing of them, it passed unambigiously into the realm of natural science. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, mathematical reasoning is a priori as far as I know, or it is at least said to be so by many philosophers and mathematicians. See Philosophy of mathematics#Platonism (search the whole article for a priori, this view isn't limited to Platonism). So, the idea that empirical science rejects a priori reasoning is at least doubtful. It does test the predictions of the later a posteriori, but it seems to me that it accepts a priori reasoning. I do agree that relative space and time are part of natural science, but they are also a metaphysical subject, having a long tradition. It is simply that natural science has embedded a metaphysical view. Becoming a matter of empirical science does not cancel further metaphysical discussion about space and time. Since the restored claim is dubious, I guess I will have to find reliable sources, include them into the article in order to reflect the diversity of views upon this subject. You cannot claim that a particular view from this debate reflects the whole diversity of the debate. In philosophy there is simply no consensus, and the chances are that philosophers will never agree upon such a big issue. Since there's no consensus, we have to reflect all notable views. We cannot allow neopositivists and their followers to claim they reflect the only truth in this matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found and added to the article a reliable source which states that special relativity includes metaphysics, so I consider that the statement that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics has been falsified. I do not object to statements such as "Carnap says that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics.", since such statements are clearly attributed to the persons who expressed such views and do not engage Wikipedia in saying that their view is true. It would be a matter of NPOV to state that Carnap is right and all other philosophers are wrong. Philosophical debate did not begin with Carnap, and it did not stop with him, not even the philosophy of science stopped there. Imho, it is an error to state in an encyclopedia that the work of Plato or Kant or Carnap is true, since this is not what one is usually taught when studying philosophy, except for studying Marxism-Leninism in a communist country or something like that. One may say that Popper's theory is the dominant way of doing science, but one cannot claim that falsificationism is true as if that were a fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. Many reputable scientists, certainly intelligent enough to recognize any conflict between science and metaphysics, have endorsed metaphysical views. One need only note Newton's mechanical philosophy or Einstein's adherence to the monism of Spinoza. Other well-known examples are the chemist Michael Polanyi and the anthropologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The contemporary herpetologist Kevin de Queiroz vigorously argues for a nominalist metaphysics against what he sees as the essentialism implicit in traditional taxonomy; the essentialist/nominalist controversy, going back at least to William of Ockham in the 14th century, is solidly in the realm of metaphysics. User 71.12.183.234 deleted the statement "The study of metaphysics is rejected by natural science" here, correctly noting that the claim was unsourced; Petter Bøckman was not correct in claiming that it summarized the text immediately preceding, as that text said nothing about anyone's rejecting anything. Tgeorgescu is also quite right that large portions of mathematics are accepted by scientists and generally considered to be a priori, though the philosopher Hartry Field has a contrary view. Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: Notice I wrote natural science rather than science. Mathematics is not normally considered a part of natural science just for the very reason you pointed out. At least here on Wikipedia, Natural science explicitly excludes mathematics. I also did not write anything about neither testability nor metaphysics being right or wrong.

The part with mathematics being considered a priori by some was a reply to "Einstein's theory of relative space and time was based on mathematical calculations", I didn't claim that mathematics would be a natural science. To phrase the things precisely, natural science (e.g. physics) employs mathematical reasoning, so at least according to some, it embeds a priori reasoning. "Natural science explicitly excludes mathematics" could be misinterpreted as "physics does not use mathematics", which is false. So, if it embeds some forms of a priori reasoning, I see no reason why it should exclude other forms of a priori reasoning. You put in whatever you have (mathematics, metaphysics, hypotheses) and if you get a falsifiable conclusion which is not ad hoc, it is scientific.

About Einstein adhering to Spinoza's monism, that was his private philosophy, the special relativity is not regarded as advocating monism, while his approach of the customarily metaphysical debate about space and time has become empirical science, so in a sense it has become public philosophy. We may say that Newton's postulates about absolute space and time were his metaphysical way of describing the natural world, in order to make it amenable to being described by his laws of motion and gravitational attraction. Perhaps for us it is common sense that the natural world can be described in terms of natural laws, but Newton had to "invent" such view, including its metaphysical assumptions, or at least borrowed some of them from Descartes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. My preferred way of stating it is that mathematics is heavily used as a tool in natural science, while the field of mathematics is in itself is not a natural science but a formal science. When it comes to the formative stage of a science or a theory, I suppose metaphysics has its place as a part of scientific philosophy. Understanding that a budding field may become a field and thinking about it in those therms is not in itself a scientific process. Any number of theories in natural science have come from decidedly unscientific inspiration. The natural sciences as such however reject the metaphysic method. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You need a source if you propose to reflect that last sentence in an edit. When you say that "the natural sciences. . . reject" metaphysics, I am assuming that you mean that natural scientists do, and I have listed five who did not. I'll add Boyle for a sixth. Kant was an important theoretician in astronomy—seven. What you really need is a secondary source. Despite Carnap's rejection of metaphysics, I don't think that he ever makes that generalization about actual scientists. Or does "natural science rejects" mean something other than "natural scientists reject"? If so, what? Peter M. Brown (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In respect to "The natural sciences as such however reject the metaphysic method.": it is true that natural sciences require hypotheses to be falsifiable, so they don't decide matters on purely philosophical grounds through nothing else than a priori reasoning. But saying that you cannot test hypotheses which include metaphysical assumptions seems like saying too much, and it is unwarranted to claim that as fact, since it is in my view only an opinion. Science does not care about including or not including metaphysical assumptions, it cares about making falsifiable statements. If the existence of God would have some bearing upon the result of a scientific experiment, the existence of God would be a scientific idea. We don't assume that science could prove or disprove the existence of God since we cannot imagine any scientific experiment which could falsify it, be it for the reason that God has many definitions and you would have to falsify all those definitions in order to show that God does not exist. But if such experiment would exist, this metaphysical idea would be testable, it would be part of the natural sciences.

I don't say that the article at [4] would be a piece of top philosophical thinking (it does have a creationistic bias, which is kind of weird in the present-day philosophy of science since it reminds us of ancilla theologiae), but it has got this right:

Ok, so what is evolutionism's 'hard core' ? There are at least two main metaphysical beliefs (held as presuppositions) underlying the theory of evolution:

1) Life has developed (from the first cell to its present diversity) up to and including man, solely via natural processes. This means basically that the universe is a closed system (no outside "meddling" is admissible).

2) Very long periods of time are required to produce the postulated results.

— Paul Gosselin, A philosophical question... Does Evolution have a hard core?

Now, this does not seem like much, but it is part of the minimal metaphysical requirements for doing biology. Methodological naturalism and Ockham's razor have to be accepted in order to be part of this science, although they are not metaphysically neutral. People of different theological persuasions have some objections to these metaphysical requirements, but as long as you want a PhD in biology from a respectable university you have to play by such rules. E.g. Frank Lewis Marsh had to subject himself to the caudine forks of the requirements for doing science which were then in force, otherwise he could not get his PhD from the University of Chicago. That he later wrote creationistic pseudoscience is of little relevance for how he got his PhD. The gist is that Ockham's razor does not exclude metaphysical assumptions from science, it just says that you have to have hard evidence for introducing a metaphysical entity into the realm of science. Science as a play field between realists and nominalists is an uneven play field, and realists have to provide extraordinary evidence in order to win debates against nominalists. And of course we may require from people who pretend to be inspired by God to produce such extraordinary evidence for their claims, since God knows everything and he could tell teach them some extraordinary science. Such evidence is not (ideally) a priori rejected, e.g. parapsychology could become a real science if it would offer more than occasional statistically significant results. It's not that judging a priori parapsychology is doomed to remain a pseudoscience. It's just that till now it has not presented extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims. E.g. if Christ were to return and take the believers up to heavens, this would be recorded as a historical event by the historians. It's not a priori impossible, but it has not been proven yet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If I remember well, one of the main reasons for many physicists having distrust for the Big Bang it was that it is a hypothesis advocated by a priest which smacks too much of creatio ex nihilo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Very nice argument, Tgeorgescu. Petter Bøckman, I don't have ready access to the book by Peter Godfrey-Smith you cite, but I have to doubt that he really says, "The rejection of a priori reasoning is the very essence of empirical science." Give me a page number, though, and I'll go to an academic library and take a look; I do regard him as an important thinker. Here, he says of his own version of systematic metaphysics that it "includes a role for continuity with science", a claim hardly compatible with your representation but very much in accord with Tgeorgescu's discussion. Peter M. Brown (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Peter Brown: The sentence was not a summary of the preceding text, but intended to summarize the last section of the article, The value and future of metaphysics. Notice again that my edit specified natural science rather than science, excluding mathematics. The points of Polanyi, de Chardin and de Queiroz are more problematic, but I would argue that this is philosophy of science rather than natural science itself. Again quoting Ledoux (2002): "Fundamentally, natural sciences are defined as disciplines that deal only with natural events (i.e., independent and dependent variables in nature) using scientific methods".

The current edit is now about philosophy of science, rather than natural science, avoiding the original point. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

___

@ Tgeorgescu: Would you take care when indenting your answers? Indenting on several levels with your rather long answers make them hard to follow.

Hard core of evolution: Sorry, I have to call bullocks on Paul Gosselin's "Does Evolution have a hard core?" article. His two assertions of a "hard core" of two metaphysical tenets is simply not true. The first (single origin of life) is not a prerequisite to evolution, though to Darwin, it was a likely consequence. As a consequence, it can be studied and evaluated, see Most recent common ancestor for some work on this. The second (amount of time) is also not an axiom. As evolution happens on the scale of generations, time is a consequence, not a prerequisite. While "deep time" was very much a part of Origin of Species, it had already been well demonstrated by Charles Lyell, thus it was a testable theory, not an axiom. Modern research on short generation organisms has shown that evolution can happen quite fast, e.g in organisms like bacteria and fruit-flies (weeks and years rather than millennia). I can only assume Gosselin does not know science history or biology too well.

Frank Lewis Marsh' difficulty in studying at the University of Chicago was not a result of him hawing to accept "metaphysical requirements", but his failure to accept a century-and-a-half of accumulated natural science evidence in showing the earth is indeed very old. On of the most important aspects of natural science, as opposed to metaphysics, is accepting when your theory is disproven. Not accepting this is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. As for the existence of God, it is simply not part of natural science as long as there's no way to test it. Various aspects of parapsychology has been tested and rejected repeatedly, it's role of pseudoscience is not a result of a matephysical requirement of natural science, but the failure of its adherents to accept it's failure in testing.

While I agree with most psychologists that parapsychology is pseudoscience, some paranormal researchers do serious research. E.g. Dr. Bierman. He also teaches psychonomics, so he does psychological research following all requirements for doing such research. He showed once a significant paranormal effect (precognition) by doing psychological research. Of course, it could be due to chance, but seen that research which does not produce significant results is in general not published, psychology and sociology are not much better than parapsychology. If all parapsychological significant results are due to mere randomness, the same can be said about significant results from sociology and psychology. It is just that parapsychology is metaphysically suspect, while psychology and sociology do not violate naturalistic metaphysics. Coming back to Bierman, he is as rational as you and me, he read what mainstream psychologists say about those who believe in paranormal, and he has not abjured parapsychology. He even did research suggesting that the belief in paranormal could be due not to psychological defects, but it could be due to genuine paranormal experiences. Since I don't agree that such experiences are "real", I only agree that there are phenomena which could be interpreted by a rational person as being genuinely paranormal. E.g. having a premonitory dream which gets verified is hard to ignore. It could be due to chance, but at least it seems genuine. I'm not speaking of déjà vu, I'm speaking of dreaming that your father is dead and a week later he dies in reality. History Channel had a documentary about the history of conceptions about the astronomy and about the beginning of the universe, therein it was claimed that Einstein did not believe in Big Bang because of his metaphysical views, but otherwise his own theories pointed that there was a Big Bang. As hinted previously, many other physicists saw Big Bang as kind of churchly intrusion inside science, that was also told in the documentary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Einstein's personal beliefs did not matter scientifically. He calculated and calculated, coming to that if space and time is relative, then gravity will distort space and bend light. The 1919 eclipse proved him right. Whether he believed he was absolutely right on all counts, and that there would have been a Big Bang again does not mean metaphysics was included in science. When it comes to big questions like that, scientists often goes sniffing just for implicit metaphysics to weed it out. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, when there was no definitive evidence about the Big Bang, physicists were betting on other options (like Steady State theory) since they found the metaphysics of Big Bang unpalatable. This was real science, empirically noticeable in publications and reviews of scientific articles, in selecting who was going to do a PhD and who wasn't, the debate was skewed by the metaphysical preferences of scientists till the Big Bang was definitely proven. They considered that the idea that the universe had a beginning is inspired by church dogma and they hated the idea that the church (represented by the priest Georges Lemaître and by the bull of Pope Pius XII) told them how to do science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Further, another example for the role of metaphysics in science is the Sokal affair. Sokal understood that applying postmodernist metaphysics to physics leads to preposterous conclusions. So, in a way, he defended the metaphysics of physics against postmodernism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree thaat the Big Bang/Steady State debate was "skewed by. . .metaphysical preferences" in any interesting sense. Something can be skewed only relative to what is straight, and nothing fills the role of the straight in this metaphor. The steady state view has a pedigree going back to Aristotle; a reluctance to abandon it was entirely reasonable. Peter M. Brown (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, rational reluctance, but it was still reluctance to abandon an entrenched view for metaphysical reasons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Peter Brown: When I write "natural science" I mean the method and the work, not the scientists themselves. Natural scientists may hold whatever belief they wish, but their work, to be accepted as natural science, must follow the scientific method. As for the rejection of metaphysical methods, Ledoux (2002): "Fundamentally, natural sciences are defined as disciplines that deal only with natural events (i.e., independent and dependent variables in nature) using scientific methods" is my quote here. That natural scientists also engage in philosophy and metaphysical thinking do not change that fact.

I must have bugget up the Godfrey-Smith reference. His book can be found here. I can find others saying the same though, like Ledoux above. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just what claim are you using Ledoux to support? Your quotation doesn't even mention metaphysics. Peter M. Brown (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I claim Ledoux says natural science only deal in natural events that can be tested by scientific methods. This, in normal terms means testing. No testing - no science. In metaphysics, theories are not subject to rulers and weights and statistics and whatnot. This makes it not natural science.Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I had a problem with the claim that natural science rejects metaphysics. I have none with the statement that metaphysics is not natural science. Peter M. Brown (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Science did not originate from epistemology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology.
The above quoted article statement is not correct.
unsigned comment added by 112.134.150.9 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Off-topic material deleted by Peter Brown (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, science did not originate from epistemology. The first scientists were the Babylonian astronomers, who substantially antedated the birth of epistomology in classical Greece. I have revised the text accordingly. Peter Brown (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Updated by Peter Brown (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is Nietzsche?

His name doesn't even appear on the page! You would think he would be one of ones featuring most prominently under 'Rejections of Metaphysics'. 111.69.247.235 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nietzche certainly should be included, but not as one who rejected metaphysics. Continuing a long philosophical tradition, he advanced a novel identification of the arkhē, the fundamental ground of reality. While Anaximander thought that the arkhē was the apeiron and Leibniz held that it consisted of monads, Nietzsche suggested that the will to power is basic. Aristotle, Democritus, Spinoza, Kant, and many others are also part of this tradition. Nietzsche certainly does merit a subsection in History and schools of metaphysics and perhaps in Being, existence and reality. Peter Brown (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Kant an Idealist?

"Idealists like Kant believe that time and space are constructs of the mind..." Whether or not Immanuel Kant is an idealist has been the subject of a long running debate. On the one hand, die Mannigfeltigkeit is ordered only in the mind and so in a sense the subject's universe is an entirely mental construct (indeed it is the creative faculty of imagination that decides what things there are, whilst the analytic, deconstructive faculty of reason merely deduces relations between them). - (Critique of Pure Reason)

There is however plenty of evidence to suggest that Kant was an (abstract sort of) realist. The question of how we can know whether the world we perceive bears any similarity to the fact of the matter about how things are was a staple of early modern philosophy. Descartes, conceding that despite his years and learning he knew no more than "Je pense, donc je suis", gave up and declared the reason trusting our perceptions almost always produces consistent and predictable results is because they are contingent on the true nature of the world because "Deus ex machina". John Locke did little better when he proposed that reality is ordered and our passive senses were designed by God to accurately receive the emanations of true reality. David Hume Dismissed the notion that reality could be ordered, and declared that order could exist only in the mind. He also dismissed the idea that we can ever know whether the world inferred from phenomenal experience is in any way similar to an underlying matter-of-fact reality. - (Meditations on First Philosophy, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

This brings us to Kant. Like Hume, he rejected the idea that meaningful order could exist in nature, and agreed that ideas are ordered by reason. But he did share Hume's scepticism. Unlike Locke, he felt that the mind was not a passive recipient of sensory information, which it would then attempt to order, but rather played an active role in shaping the world. BUT, there are two points that should be made here. Firstly, whilst the structure and diversity of the world were constructed in the mind, Kant felt that the subject had direct phenomenal contact with the manifold of reality, as well as having certain "transcendental" constraints on his imagination, meaning that it was possible for him to discover the truth of things as they actually were. (Indeed, Richard Rorty argues that Kant was the first to claim empirical science could discover genuine truths about the world). Secondly, Kant himself admits that we can never apperceive noumena, "die Dinge an sich" (things in themselves, non-extended). This suggests that whilst the mind plays an active role in constructing the world of immediate experience, he not only believes in an underlying fact-of-the-matter reality, but feels that it has a direct effect on the world constructed by the mind. (Kathleen M. Wheeler, in "Kant and Romanticism" Philosophy and Literature vol. 13 no. 1, argues that whilst for Kant the mind played an active role in receiving a schematic of the world, the senses themselves were nevertheless still passive and so received the phenomenal consequences of the unordered manifold in exactly the same way as Locke's subject received the phenomenal consequences of an ordered reality.) Whilst I am not putting this forward as definitive proof that Kant was definitely not an idealist, nevertheless I feel that given it is by no means an obvious or consensus point of view it should not be claimed in the article.

Rant over.

R160K (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Kant is not an idealist in a "traditional" sense. I mean, an important part of the second edition of the first critique is the "Refutation of Idealism" which is exactly as it describes: A proof that "traditional" idealism (which he calls "material idealism") is wrong, on the basis of transcendental philosophy as he had earlier established in the critique. However, the interpretation of Kant's philosophy as "transcendental idealism" is quite normal (see Strawson, Bird, Allison—Strawson even seems to go further, and very much ties Kant to Berkeley). Kant himself calls his philosophy an "idealism", terming it either "transcendental idealism", or, what he takes to be a better term, "critical idealism" (Prolegomena 293-294). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Emperor without clothes?

I'm at odds with both the two first sentences in the article:

"Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms"

First veil... to say that metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy... is not wrong, but indicates a bias leaning towards what we identify as analytical philosophy, predominant in the Anglo-american world, in contrast to continental philosophy. The arborescent structuring of philosophy into different branches, fields, in which one as a professional philosopher may specialise is to my reading the most clear signifying mark of analytical philosophy. Nevertheless, no real harm, nothing fundamentally erroneous. Allthough to say that it is a traditional branch of philosophy, may mislead the reader to think that branches of philosophy follows naturally along the history of philosophy back to the days of Socrates, Platon and Aristotle. Philosophy as an academic profession is strictly speaking something very young, emerging contemporaneously with industrial modernity. To use the word "traditionally" in this context is clearly giving a misleading notion. The next part of the opening sentence is highly problematic. The starting point of the concept of metaphysics is Aristotles work on physics. Physics, in the sense Aristotle uses the concept, deals with exactly the same things as is here expressed Metaphysics are concerned with! Physics encompasses, in this Aristotelian concept, all branches of philosophy and science, simply the study of everything natural, or that have been given a physical reality (physical relates etymologically to being born). Metaphysics, the name of the sequential work by Aristotle, after his work on Physics, is not referring to some other reality than the physical reality, but encompassing all reality, perceptible and imperceptible, no matter the quality of the content of the things that are to be studied. The distinction between being and phenomena, ontology and phenomenology is not a marker distinguishing physics from metaphysics. Some scholars hold that the concept of 'meta., in the work 'Metaphysics' simply means that this work is the work following the work of 'Physics'. Anyhow, metaphysics should not be regarded in anyway opposite, or dialectic, or regarding another kind of physics, than physics. Metaphysics primarily deals with the premises of knowing and of knowledge itself, with what means can we know, and communicate our research. In the next sentence the word "traditionally" shows up again. Here it is even more vague. In stead of saying "traditionally", it rather should have said: "In common sense metaphysics are often identified with our attempt, philosophically, to answer two basic questions in the broadest sense:".

But it should be no doubt that this common-sensical understanding of metaphysics has little, or anything with the inquiry into the premises of our knowing, acknowledgment, study and research which is at the core of Aristotles' work called Metaphysics, from which the concept and tradition comes. Compare the articles in other languages, especially Continental Europe, or elsewhere where Analytical Philosophy is not the dominant philosophical tradition. As this article appears now, it's terrible, simply wrong. --Xact (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysics v physics

For metaphysics beyond physics 

The	concept 
in	concert 
or	convert 
would	connect 
in	content 
or	context.

--KYPark (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Metaphysicsis a traditional branch ofphilosophyconcerned with explaining the fundamental nature ofbeingand theworldthat encompasses it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahanur miah (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kant image

Why does he look like a total retard on the image (top of the page)? Who made that picture anyway? I would change it myself but I dunno how to work with this system. Peace BeefDaeRoastLXG ^praat 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Suprahuman" and metaphysics

The redirect Suprahuman, whose target is the current article, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Suprahuman. Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For metaphysics beyond physics

Metaphysics v Physics

The	concept 
in	concert 
or	convert 
would	connect 
in	content 
or	context.

--KYPark (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the entire history section so eurocentric ? What about Buddhist, Hindu, Chinese etc. views on metaphysicss ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.163.242 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  :: go and write some then !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.234.255 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 

The first central question of metaphysics

As the main question metaphysics, right now the following is listed:

1. Ultimately, what is there?

This formulation bothers me, specifically the 'there'. Metaphysics is not mainly concerned with any location or place, but with ontology. Rather, 'thereness' itself would be object of metaphysical scrutiny. I am aware that this is simply an expression in the English language and that this may seem obnoxious, but for the sake of semantical strictness, I feel the project of metaphysics would be more accurately portrayed in a formulation that is limited to the question of being, in the most abstract sense. Therefore, I propose the following to be listed as the first central question of metaphysics:

1. Ultimately, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.57.186 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

China missing ?

The history section could use some input on asian/chinese philosophy, daoism etc, can anyone knowledgeable help? It is still quite Euro-centric otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.237.189 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Article (Re-) Organization

The article is currently disorganized, and this is due, in large part, to the lack of clear boundaries between different metaphysical traditions.

In reflecting on a taxonomy by which to organize the article, I suggest the following as a first pass taxonomy:

• Contemporary (Analytical) Metaphysics
  • Topics of General Ontology
    • Existence, identity, etc.
  • Topics of Special Metaphysics
    • Free Will, Personal Identity, Causation, etc.
  • Contemporary Metaphysics in the Continental Tradition
  • Skepticism about Metaphysics
• Historical Metaphysics in the Western Tradition
  • Ancient Greeks, Scholastics, Kant, Logical Positivism, etc.
• Metaphysics in the Eastern and Other Traditions
• Metaphysics in popular culture

BabyJonas (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lost anchor

In “Thus, while Ayer rejected the monism of Spinoza, noted above, he avoided…”, “above” refers to the non-existing anchor #Mind and matter. I suppose this remains from a former state of the page. There is in fact nothing else about Spinoza in the page. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@DominiqueM: You are right. I have removed the link for now, I did not verify the following inline source(s), but those are the ones which matter and should support the material. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Massive original research removed

Someone have written a huge original essay squeezing in lots of various philosophies. either without sources of with tangential sources, ie., which does not explicitely refer to the conept of "metaphysics". I removed a significant part of it and will continue removing. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an actual objection to the appropriateness of that content here or is it just lacking good sourcing? At a glance it all looks like the kind of thing that should be long in an article about metaphysics and nothing jumped out as egregiously incorrect. Tagging it in need of improved references could be much more constructive than just deleting it all. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This kind of an extremely vague subject must be extremely carefully sourced. Especially keeping in mind that the meaning of the term changed variously and significantly over time. Therefore detailed attribution is a must as well. Especially funny were parts speaking about (supposedly metaphysics) in paleolithic times. Not to say that "Ultimately, what is there? and What is it like? in the lede sounds rather obfuscatory and allows for adding pretty much everything remotely phylosophical into this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point towards WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BOLD. I agree that some of the deleted material belongs here, but I also agree that in philosophy, WP:BLUE is a contested concept, and needs good refs. Besides, everything is recorded in the article's history, and can be used to build a better article. Paradoctor (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the same vandal deleted the majority of the history section around july 2017 too, which I have restored. As with the above -- if they would like to propose and discuss such a large on the talk page before just deleting hundreds of hours of a great many people's work, evidenced by the long and multi-user edit history, then please do go ahead. The place for that discussion is on the talk page, not just vandalising the article on such a massive scale. Also as before -- if concerned about missing references then please help to improve by finding some and adding them. Most of the linked articles for example already have a great many which could be copied to here. Deleting Aristotle from a history of metaphysics was particularly bizarre there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.71.111 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I was not the one who removed this material, but a problem I see is that most of the restored material is unsourced. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed, that is not vandalism but policy (WP:V, WP:CITE: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.). An encyclopedia is not a usual textbook. —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

let's all work to add some refs then... mostly they can just be copied in from the articles these sections link to which already have them.

Seems like the baby got thrown out with the bathwater here. No more categories of Metaphysics? Shouldn't Ontology, Cosmology, First Principles, Natural Theology... be highlighted? No more topics of Metaphysics? Identity and Change, Cosmogony, Eschatology, etc. now missing? A giant step backward here, a disservice even, and it's surprising. Hurricane2u (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Hurricane2u

Just bring the sources which discuss cosmology as part of metaphysics. Cosmology by itself has its own article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

These was no original research here, it is all taken from standard metaphysics textbooks plus some archeology literature. What's wrong with the prehistoric metaphysics section? Understanding how prehistoric people (and similar modern "stone age" tribes) thought and think is a massive area of academic research and is one which has informed much discussion of the history of metaphysics. There is entire movement in archeology called Cognitive Archeology devoted to this study. Cave paintings, tools, and itnerviews with modern tribes have provided much of the insight into humanity's philosophical history. For example Lewis-Williams' books "The Mind in the Cave", and "Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods." and Huxley's "The perrennial philosophy" argue for a single prehistoric metaphysics found all over the world (and in tribes today) which formed the basis of Plato's thought on the realms of concepts and objects. The text which you deleted contained references to all these via its links which you clearly did not bother to follow and read. Metaphysics isn't just the preserve of modern white western males, it should include the views of these other peoples over time and space.

To the vandal who removed all of the central questions, which are the main part of this article and represent each of the standard parts of the subject as taught in all major US and EU universities: You deleted the main body of the article claiming it was "original research". It very clearly is not, as the edit history shows it has been built up over many years on here by many smart people. It refers to each of the topics with links to them in more detail, and closely follows the structure of most major textbooks in the area (for random example, The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics (Routledge Philosophy Companions) by Robin Le Poidevin (Editor),‎ Simons Peter (Editor),‎ McGonigal Andrew (Editor),‎ Ross P. Cameron (Editor) ). If you think any particular sentences represent original research then please say which ones here on the talk page so that the community can discuss and possibly remove them. As with all wikipedia articles there are surely aspects of the section which still need improving so why not go in and do that to help out. If you know so much about philosophy it would not be very hard for you to go and find some citations to add to each of the sections, eg by working through that Routledge textbook yourself. Without this backbone section there is no way a new potential undergrad, for example, in the subject, could form a realistic opinion of what the academic subject is generally taken to be about.

To the person/s who keeps removing these sections -- please discuss your proposed deletion on this talk page before making such destructive changes. If you think citations are needed then please help us all to find more and add them.

restoring central questions

To the vandal who removed all of the central questions, which are the main part of this article and represent each of the standard parts of the subject as taught in all major US and EU universities: You deleted the main body of the article claiming it was "original research". It very clearly is not, as the edit history shows it has been built up over many years on here by many smart people. It refers to each of the topics with links to them in more detail, and closely follows the structure of most major textbooks in the area (for random example, The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics (Routledge Philosophy Companions) by Robin Le Poidevin (Editor),‎ Simons Peter (Editor),‎ McGonigal Andrew (Editor),‎ Ross P. Cameron (Editor) ). If you think any particular sentences represent original research then please say which ones here on the talk page so that the community can discuss and possibly remove them. As with all wikipedia articles there are surely aspects of the section which still need improving so why not go in and do that to help out. If you know so much about philosophy it would not be very hard for you to go and find some citations to add to each of the sections, eg by working through that routledge textbook yourself. Without this backbone section there is no way a new potential undergrad, for example, in the subject, could form a realistic opinion of what the academic subject is generally taken to be about. I studied metaphysics with Richard Holton, now professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge, UK, and teaching previously at Edinburgh and MIT, and I think the central questions list is representative of the topics taught in those classes. I am currently teaching ontology to undergrads myself and am fairly reliant on this list being in tact as I know my new students will be using it as a reference to understand what the field is about. So please don't mess it up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.71.111 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I agree that the blanket removal was unconstructive and the better course of action is just to improve references. The removed material is obviously relevant to anyone with any experience in the field and I thank you for restoring it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

For comparison, look at the SEP article on Metaphysics, which lists mostly the same topics being deleted from here as the problems within the field of metaphysics. Literally everything except the cosmology and religion sections from here are also there, mostly verbatim. Seriously, this is completely ridiculous. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Also of note is that that section is summary-style linking to full articles for each of its subtopics, which articles are themselves chock full of references. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Change lead third paragraph

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.[5]

Topics of metaphysical investigation include experience and existence , space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.[5], Arnlodg (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

OK with me. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And if so, why not:

Topics of metaphysical investigation include experience and existence , space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.[5] Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Change ref. and link lead sentence to original meaning...

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2]

Metaphysics is a philosophical attitude towards the love of wisdom about our fundamental nature in reality, including relationships[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2]

Arnlodg (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that metaphysics is an attitude, and few philosophers would say so.

Peter Brown (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A philosophical "attitude" includes passion in itself, a source...Philosophers have a love of wisdom, it's how they are defined...and metaphysics by a philosopher is an intentional attitude a philosophical attitude.

Arnlodg (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you can find a reliable source that defines a philosopher as a lover of wisdom. To be sure, the English term does derive from the ancient Greek φιλόσοφος (philosophos), which did mean lover of wisdom, but the English word today refers to one who specializes in philosophy with whatever attitude.

Your first cited paper is entitled "Philosophy—The Love of Wisdom?"" Note the question mark. There is no assertion that love of wisdom is what philosophy is.

It is also very unlikely that you can find a source that characterizes metaphysics as an attitude, by a philosopher or anyone else.

Peter Brown (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Its if when one takes up metaphysics, an attitude then becomes foundational to the pursuit. Wikipedia has an article "Attitude (Psychology)"-'In psychology, attitude is a psychological construct, a mental and emotional entity that inheres in, or characterizes a person. They are complex and are an acquired state through experiences.' and please check out this links lead sentence reference ( Richard M. Perloff, The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century, Routledge, 2016.) as to a very modern sourcing...

Arnlodg (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The agreement was that you would consult before editing. This is another example of you using the talk page of anrtcle to exoress your personaly view supported by inadequate and/or ideosyncratic references. You are (again) asking other editors to do work for you. This must now STOP, one more example and I will ask for your indefinate ban to be restored -----Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was only a 'talk page' for 'new topics', here, and is (like) consulting with you and apparently other editors, I have not changed or edited this article, please clarify, thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is to discuss specific amendments to the article. Not for expressions of personal opinion, requests to other editors to read articles you personally like and certainly not to ask other editors to work out edits for you. You are wasting people's time. If you have a specific proposal to improve and article post on my talk page and we will look at it together -----Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to include Aztec metaphysics

I would suggest that Aztec metaphysics be included since it was influential for a time in the development of pre-European New World philosophy, or at least a link be included to the page on it. I'd do it myself but I don't have the know-how on the topic to edit the page itself yet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_philosophy

Projotce (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The linked article is just a stub with few references I suggest trying to improve that first -----Snowded ^TALK 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)