Difference between revisions of "Metaphysics" - New World Encyclopedia
(adding wiki version) |
Keisuke Noda (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | [[Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] (right), by [[Raphael]] (Stanza della Segnatura, [[Rome]]). Aristotle is regarded as the "father" of metaphysics.]] | |
+ | '''Metaphysics''' ( [[Greek language|Greek]]: ''μετά (meta)'' = "after", ''φυσικά (phisiká)'' = "those on nature", derived from the arrangement of [[Aristotle]]'s works in antiquity<ref>That is, the articles concerning what Aristotle called the "first philosophy", and what we now call metaphysics, were several articles that appeared after his articles on nature, which was called physics. Therefore since the articles on the "first philosophy" came ''after'' the physics articles, the subject was called "metaphysics".</ref>) is the branch of [[philosophy]] concerned with explaining the nature of the [[World (philosophy)|world]]. It is the study of [[being]] or [[reality]].<ref name ="BECA">Geisler, Norman L. "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" page 446. Baker Books, 1999</ref> It addresses questions such as: What is the nature of [[reality]]? What is humankind's place in the [[universe]]? Are colors objective or subjective? Does the world exist outside the mind? What is the nature of objects, events, places? | ||
− | + | A central branch of metaphysics is [[ontology]], the investigation into what [[category of being|categories]] of things are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including [[existence]], [[object (philosophy)|objecthood]], [[property (philosophy)|property]], [[space]], [[time]], [[causality]], and [[possibility]]. | |
− | + | More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used to refer to "subjects which are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore," for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on [[spirit]]s, [[faith healing]], [[crystal power]], [[occultism]], and other such topics. | |
− | + | Before the development of [[modern science]], scientific questions were addressed in metaphysics under the [[natural philosophy]] branch. This practice continued until up to the time of [[Isaac Newton]] (who was a natural philosopher himself) straight through the 18th century (the term "science" simply meant knowledge prior to the 19th century). However from the 19th century onwards natural philosophy became science, thus changing the definition of metaphysics to mainly include subjects beyond the physical world. Natural philosophy and thus science can still be considered topics of metaphysics, depending on whether or not the definition of the term includes empirical explanations. | |
− | + | ==History of metaphysics== | |
+ | Referred to as the subject of "first philosophy," the term "metaphysics" is thought to have originated from the works of [[Aristotle]]. The editor of his works, [[Andronicus of Rhodes]], placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, ''Physics'', and called these books {{polytonic|τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά βιβλια}} (''ta meta ta physika biblia'') or, "the books that come after the [books on] physics." This was misread by Latin [[wiktionary:scholiast|scholiasts]], who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical."{{Fact|date=February 2007}} In the English language, the word comes by way of the [[Medieval Latin]] ''metaphysica'', the neuter plural of [[Medieval Greek]] ''metaphysika''.<ref name="Etymology">{{cite web|url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=metaphysics |title=Online Etymology Dictionary |accessmonthday=August 29 |accessyear=2006 |author=Douglas Harper}}</ref> While its Greek and Latin origins are clear, various dictionaries trace its first appearance in English to the mid 16th-century, in some cases as early as 1387.<ref name="Etymology"/> <ref name="Dictionary">{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphysics |title=Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary |accessmonthday=August 29 |accessyear=2006}}</ref> | ||
− | + | Aristotle's ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'' was divided into three parts, in addition to some smaller sections related to a philosophical lexicon and some reprinted extracts from the ''[[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]]'', which are now regarded as the proper branches of traditional Western metaphysics: | |
− | + | * ''[[Ontology]]'' — the study of [[Being]] and [[existence]]; includes the definition and classification of [[entity|entities]], physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change. | |
− | + | * ''[[Theology]]'' — the study of [[God]] (or the [[deity|gods]]); involves many topics, including among others the nature of religion and the world, existence of the [[Divinity|divine]], questions about Creation, and the numerous [[religious]] or [[spiritual]] issues that concern humankind in general. | |
− | + | * ''Universal science'' — the study of [[Aristotelian first principles|first principles]], which Aristotle believed to be the foundation of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the [[law of noncontradiction]] and the status it holds in non-paraconsistent [[Aristotelian logic|logics]]. | |
− | + | 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. Essentially "being ''[[wiktionary:qua|qua]]'' being" may be translated as "being insofar as being goes," or as, "being in terms of being." This includes topics such as causality, substance, species and elements, as well as the notions of relation, interaction, and finitude. | |
− | + | Metaphysics as a [[discipline]] was a central part of academic inquiry and scholarly education even before the age of [[Aristotle]]. Long considered "the Queen of Sciences,"{{citequote}} its issues were considered no less important than the other main formal subjects of [[physical science]], [[medicine]], [[mathematics]], [[poetics]] and [[music]]. Since the [[17th-century philosophy|beginning of modern philosophy]] during the 17th-century, problems that were not originally considered within the bounds of metaphysical have been added to its purview, while other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically relegated to their own separate regions in philosophy, such as [[philosophy of religion]], [[philosophy of mind]], [[philosophy of perception]], [[philosophy of language]], and [[philosophy of science]]. | |
− | + | In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of [[physics]] proper (cf. [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]]). | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Central questions of metaphysics== |
+ | {{Inappropriate tone}} | ||
+ | Most positions that can be taken with regards to any of the following questions are endorsed by one or another notable philosopher. It is often difficult to frame the questions in a non-controversial manner. | ||
− | + | ===Mind and Matter=== | |
+ | {{see also|matter|materialism|philosophy of mind}} | ||
+ | The nature of [[hyle|matter]]<!-- this links to a page describing the origins of the concept of matter —> was a problem in its own right in early philosophy. Indeed, it was Aristotle who introduced the idea of matter in general to the Western world, adapting the term ''[[hyle]]'' which originally meant "lumber". Early debates centred on identifying a single underlying principle. Water was claimed by [[Thales]], Air by [[Anaximenes]], ''[[Apeiron]]'' (the Boundless) by Anaximander, Fire by [[Heraclitus]]. [[Democritus]] conceived an [[atomic]] theory many centuries before it became scientifically accepted. | ||
− | + | Of course, [[empirical]] [[science]] is now looked to for insights into [[matter]].<!-- This links to a page describing matter from the physics POV —> | |
+ | 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 [[mechanism|mechanistic]] understanding of the brain and body. Proposed solutions often have ramifications about the nature of [[reality]] as a whole. [[René Descartes]] proposed | ||
+ | [[substance dualism]], a theory according to which mind and body are essentially quite different, with the mind having some of the attributes traditionally assigned to the [[soul]], in the 17th 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 rather sweeping proposal to address the mind-body problem is [[idealism]], in which the material is eliminated in favour of the mental. Idealists, such as [[Bishop 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 20th century exponent of this approach. | ||
− | + | [[Idealism]] is a [[monism|monistic]] theory, in which there is a single universal substance or principles. [[Neutral monism]], associated in different forms with [[Baruch Spinoza]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] is a theory which seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid | |
+ | the problems of [[substance dualism]]. It claims that existence consists of as single substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes — thus it implies a [[dual-aspect theory]]. | ||
− | + | For the last 100 years, the dominant metaphysics has without a doubt been [[materialism|materialistic monism]]. Science has demonstrated many ways in which mind and brain interact, but the exact nature of the relationship is still open to debate. Type [[identity theory]], token [[identity theory]], [[functionalism]], [[reductive physicalism]], [[nonreductive physicalism]], [[eliminative materialism]], [[anomolous 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 Malet Armstrong|David Armstrong]], [[Ned Block]], [[David Chalmers]], [[Patricia Churchland|Patricia]] and [[Paul Churchland]], [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Jerry Fodor]], [[David Kellogg Lewis|David Lewis]], [[Hilary Putnam]], [[John Smart]] and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]. | |
− | + | ===Objects and their properties=== | |
+ | {{Further|[[Problem of universals]]}} | ||
+ | The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as the British constitution, Greek democracy, and the number "3." Such objects are called [[particular]]s. Now, consider two apples. There seem to be many ways in which those two apples are similar, they may be approximately the same size, or shape, or color. They are both fruit, etc. One might also say that the two apples seem to have some thing or things in common. [[Universals]] or [[Property (philosophy)|Properties]] are said to be those things. | ||
− | + | Metaphysicians working on questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of [[objects]] and their [[properties]], and the relationship between the two. For instance, one might hold that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of [[space]] and [[time]], to which particular objects bear special relations. Others maintain that what particulars are is a [[Bundle theory|bundle]] or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have). | |
− | + | === Identity and change === | |
+ | {{Main|Identity and change}} | ||
+ | ::''For further information, see: [[Identity (philosophy)|Identity]], and [[Philosophy of space and time]]'' | ||
+ | The Greeks took some extreme positions on the nature of change: [[Parmenides]] denied that change occurs at all, while [[Heracleitus]] thought change was ubiquitous — "you cannot step into the same river twice". | ||
− | + | Identity, sometimes called [[Numerical identity|Numerical Identity]], is the relation that a "thing" bears to itself, and which no "thing" bears to anything other than itself (cf. [[sameness]]). According to [[Gottfried Leibniz|Leibniz]], if some object '''''x''''' is identical to some object '''''y''''', then any property that '''''x''''' has, '''''y''''' will have as well. However, it seems, too, that objects can change over time. If one were to look at a tree one day, and the tree later lost a leaf, it would seem that one could still be looking at that same tree. Two rival theories to account for [[Identity and change|the relationship between change and identity]] are [[Perdurantism]], which treats the tree as a series of tree-stages, and [[Endurantism]] which maintains that the tree — the same tree — is present at every stage in its history. | |
− | == | + | ===Space and time=== |
+ | {{See also|Philosophy of space and time|Spacetime}} | ||
+ | A traditional [[Philosophical realism|realist]] position in ontology is that time and space have existence apart from the human mind. [[Idealists]], including [[Kant]] claim that space and time are mental constructs used to organise perceptions, or are otherwise unreal. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Suppose that one is sitting at a table, with an apple in front of him or her; the apple exists in [[space]] and in [[time]], but what does this statement indicate? Could it be said, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is positioned? Suppose the apple, and all physical objects in the universe, were removed from existence entirely. Would space as an "invisible grid," still exist? [[René Descartes]] and [[Leibniz]] believed it would not, arguing that without physical objects, "space" would be meaningless because space is the framework upon which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. [[Isaac Newton|Newton]], on the other hand, argued for an [[Absolute time and space|absolute]] [[container space|"container" space]]. The pendulum swung back to [[relational space]] with [[Einstein]] and [[Ernst Mach]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the absolute/relative debate, and the realism debate are equally applicable to time and space, | ||
+ | time presents some special problems of its own. The ''flow'' of time has been denied in ancient times by [[Parmenides]] and more recently by [[J. M. E. McTaggart]] in his paper ''[[The Unreality of Time]]''. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The ''direction'' of time, or [[time's arrow]], is also a puzzle, although physics is now driving the debate rather than philosophy. It appears that fundamental laws are time-reversible and the arrow of time must be an "[[emergent]]" phenomenon, perhaps explained by [[thermodynamics]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Common-sense tells us that objects ''persist'' across time, that there is some sense in which you are the same person you were yesterday, in which the oak is the same as the acorn, in which you perhaps even can step into the same river twice. Philosophers have developed two rival theories for how this happens, called "[[endurantism]]" and "[[perdurantism]]". Broadly speaking, endurantists hold that a whole object exists at each moment of its history, and the same object exist at each moment. | ||
+ | Perdurantists believe that objects 4-dimensional entities made up of a series of [[Temporal Parts]] like the frames of a [[movie]]. | ||
+ | <!--This isn't exactly metaphsyics and could well be OR | ||
+ | |||
+ | The so-called [[Big Bang]] theory raises the question, ''did spacetime exist before the singularity?'' It involves the metaphysical problems of [[absolute time and space]] and the creation of [[matter]] [[ex nihilo]]. One of the formulations suggests the presence of eternal [[quantum foam]] existing above time and space.<ref name ="ABOVE TIME"> Gabriel Veneziano,''The Myth of the Beginning of Time'', Scientific American, 2004 Vol.5, Issue 1</ref>.From this eternal, primary substance the singularity creating the new Universe could occur randomly.{{fact}} [[Ervin Laszlo]] mentions the similar notion of so called "quantum vacuum". [[Andrei Linde]] and [[Alan Guth]] argue that the concept of quantum foam/quantum vacuum and the model of cosmological inflation strongly suggest the presence of a [[Multiverse (science)|multiverse]].{{citation needed}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Lee Smolin]] who developed the theory of [[cosmological natural selection]] suggests that universes ([[fecund universes]]) evolve in favor of the production of [[black holes]].{{citation needed}} [[Ervin Laszlo]] maintains that "quantum vacuums" are fundamental information - the carrying fields that informs not just the current universe, but all universes past and present, which he names collectively as the "Metaverse".{{citation needed}} He argues that such an informational field can explain why our universe is so improbably fine-tuned as to form galaxies and conscious lifeforms; and why evolution is an informed, not random, process.{{dubious}}—> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Religion and spirituality=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Theology]] is the study of God (or the gods) and of questions about the divine. Is there one God ([[monotheism]]), many ([[polytheism]]) or none ([[atheism]])? Does the Divine intervene ([[theism]]), | ||
+ | or not ([[deism]]). Are God and the World different or identical ([[pantheism]])? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Metaphysics can be practised within a theological framework, for instance [[scholasticism]]; alternatively, theological questions can be considered from a metaphysical perspective. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Necessity and possibility=== | ||
+ | {{see also|Modal logic|Modal realism}} | ||
+ | Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. [[David Kellogg Lewis|David Lewis]], in "On the Plurality of Worlds," endorsed a view called Concrete [[Modal realism]], according to which facts about how things could have been are made true by other [[concrete (philosophy)|concrete]] worlds, just like ours, in which things are different. Other philosophers, such as [[Gottfried Leibniz]], have dealt with the idea of possible worlds as well. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all [[possible world]]s; that is, we could not imagine it to be otherwise. A possible fact is one that is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed. By contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as [[analytic proposition]]s, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried." The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less controversial view might be that self-identity is necessary, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any '''''x''''', it is not identical to itself; this is known as the ''principle of contradiction''. Aristotle describes the ''principle of contradiction'', "It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing . . . This is the most certain of all principles . . . Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms." | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Abstract Objects and Mathematics=== | ||
+ | {{see also|Nominalism|Platonism|Philosophy of mathematics}} | ||
+ | Some philosophers endorse views according to which there are [[abstract object]]s such as numbers, or [[Universals]]. ([[Universals]] are properties that can be instantiated by mutliple objects, such as | ||
+ | ''redness'' or ''squareness''). Abstract objects are generally regarded as being outside of [[space]] and [[time]], and/or as being [[Causality|causally]] inert. [[Philosophy of mathematics|Mathematical objects]] and fictional entities and worlds are often given as examples of abstract objects. The view that there really are no abstract objects is called [[nominalism]]. [[Philosophical realism|Realism]] about such objects is exemplified by [[Platonism]]. Other positions include [[moderate realism]], as espoused by [[Aristotle]], and [[conceptualism]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The [[philosophy of mathematics]] overlaps with metaphysics because some positions are [[Philosophy of mathematics#Mathematical realism|realistic]] in the sense that they hold that mathematical objects really exist — whether transcendentally, physically, or mentally. [[Platonic realism]] holds that mathematical entities are a transcendent realm of non-physical objects. The simplest form of [[mathematical empiricism]] claims that mathematical objects are just ordinary physical objects — squares are just square things and so on. [[Plato]] rejected this view, among other reasons, because geometrical figures in mathematics have a perfection that no physical instantiation can capture. Modern mathematicians have developed many strange and complex mathematical structures with no counterparts in observable reality, further underminining this view. The third main form of realism holds that mathematical entities exist in the mind. however, given a [[materialism|materialistic]] conception of the mind, it does not have the capacity to literally contain the many infinities of objects in mathematics. [[Intuitionism]], inspired by [[Kant]], | ||
+ | sticks with the idea that "there are no non-experienced mathematical truths". This involves rejecting as intuitionistically unacceptable anything that cannot be held in the mind or explicitly [[constructivism|constructed]]. Intuitionists reject the [[law of the excluded middle]] and are | ||
+ | suspicious of infinity, particularly of [[transfinite number]]s. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Other positions such as [[formalism]] and [[Mathematical fictionalism|fictionalism]] are [[anti-realism|anti-realist]] — they basically do not attribute any existence to mathematical entities. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Determinism and Free Will=== | ||
+ | {{see also|Determinism|Free will}} | ||
+ | [[Determinism]] is the [[philosophy|philosophical]] [[proposition]] that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is [[causality|causally]] determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. It holds that no [[randomness|random]], [[spontaneous]], mysterious, or [[miracle|miraculous]] events occur. The principal consequence of the deterministic claim is that it poses a challenge to the existence of [[free will]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The problem of [[free will]] is the problem of whether rational agents exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. | ||
+ | Some philosophers, called [[incompatibilism|Incompatibilists]] view determinism and free will as [[mutually exclusive]]. If they believe in determinism, they will therefore believe free will to be an illusion, a position known as ''Hard Determinism''. Proponents range from [[Baruch Spinoza]] to [[Ted Honderich]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Others, labeled [[Compatibilism|Compatibilists]], (or Soft Determinists) believe that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled. Adherents of this view include [[Thomas Hobbes]] and many modern philosophers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Incompatibilists who accept [[free will]] but reject determinism are called [[Libertarianism (metaphysics)|Libertarians]] — not to be confused with the political sense. [[Robert Kane]] is one of the few modern defenders of this theory. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as [[Fatalism]]); However determinists believe that the level to which human beings have influence over their future, is itself dependent on present and past. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Cosmology and Cosmogony=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{See also|Cosmology (metaphysics)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Cosmology''' is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the [[world]] as the totality of all [[phenomena]] in [[space]] and [[time]]. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern use it addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. [[dialectic]]s). [[Cosmogony]] deals specifically with the origin of the universe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Modern metaphysical cosmology and cosmogony try to address questions such as: | ||
+ | *What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see [[monism]], [[pantheism]], [[emanationism]] and [[creationism]]) | ||
+ | *What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see [[mechanism (philosophy)|mechanism]], [[dynamism]], [[hylomorphism]], [[atomism]]) | ||
+ | *What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see [[teleology]]) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Criticism== | ||
+ | Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague. [[David Hume]] went so far as to write: | ||
+ | |||
+ | "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion". | ||
+ | |||
+ | - [[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Immanuel Kant]] prescribed a limited role to the subject and argued against knowledge progressing beyond the world of our representations, except to knowledge that the ''[[Noumenon|noumena]]'' exist: "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears." | ||
+ | |||
+ | - [[Critique of Pure Reason]] pp. Bxxvi-xxvii. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Alfred Ayer|A.J. Ayer]] is famous for leading a "revolt against metaphysics," where he claimed that its propositions were meaningless in his book "Language, Truth and Logic". British universities became less concerned with the area for much of the 20th century. However, metaphysics has seen a reemergence in recent times amongst philosophy departments. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A more nuanced view is that metaphysical statements are not ''meaningless'' statements, but rather that they are generally not ''fallible'', ''testable'' or ''provable'' statements (see [[Karl Popper]]). That is to say, there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could ''definitively'' prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an ''idea'' about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That idea could be changed in a ''non-arbitrary'' way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally ''force'' a change in that idea, in the sense of definitely proving it false. <!--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 abligatory at all." Lewis exaplains 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 may also be a useful analogy. For light to exist, darkness must also exist (to some degree). Without the existance of both in some proportion, neither one may exist. The very meaning of light implies the existance 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 existance of one is essentially "hardwired" into the existance of the other, through definition. But just as there are direct opposites, there are verying 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.—> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Metaphysical subdisciplines== | ||
+ | * [[Natural philosophy]] | ||
* [[Ontology]] | * [[Ontology]] | ||
* [[Philosophy of religion]] | * [[Philosophy of religion]] | ||
Line 55: | Line 153: | ||
* [[Philosophy of perception]] | * [[Philosophy of perception]] | ||
− | == Metaphysical topics and problems == | + | ==Metaphysical topics and problems== |
* [[Identity and change]] | * [[Identity and change]] | ||
+ | * [[Problem of free will]] | ||
+ | * [[Time|The nature of time]] | ||
+ | * [[Mind|The nature of the mind]] | ||
− | == | + | == Notable metaphysicians == |
− | + | {|width=100% | |
− | + | |-valign=top | |
− | + | |width=25%| | |
− | + | * [[Peter Abelard]] | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | = | ||
− | |||
− | * | ||
− | |||
* [[Aristotle]] | * [[Aristotle]] | ||
− | * | + | * [[David Malet Armstrong]] |
+ | * [[Thomas Aquinas]] | ||
+ | * [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] | ||
+ | * [[Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina) | ||
+ | * [[Mikhail Bakunin]] | ||
+ | * [[George Berkeley]] | ||
+ | * [[Boethius]] | ||
* [[Louis-Victor de Broglie]] | * [[Louis-Victor de Broglie]] | ||
* [[William Kingdon Clifford]] | * [[William Kingdon Clifford]] | ||
+ | * [[David Chalmers]] | ||
+ | * [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]] | ||
+ | * [[Patricia Churchland]] | ||
+ | |width=25%| | ||
+ | * [[Paul Churchland]] | ||
* [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]] | * [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]] | ||
− | * [[Gilles Deleuze]] | + | * [[Gilles Deleuze]] |
− | * [[ | + | * [[René Descartes]] |
− | * [[Albert Einstein]] | + | * [[Meister Eckhart]] |
− | * [[ | + | * [[Albert Einstein]] |
− | * [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | + | * [[Charles Fillmore (Unity Church)|Charles Fillmore]] |
+ | * [[René Guénon]] | ||
+ | * [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] | ||
* [[Martin Heidegger]] | * [[Martin Heidegger]] | ||
* [[Werner Heisenberg]] | * [[Werner Heisenberg]] | ||
+ | * [[David Hume]] | ||
+ | * [[William James]] | ||
* [[Immanuel Kant]] | * [[Immanuel Kant]] | ||
+ | * [[Mahmoud Khatami]] | ||
* [[Saul Kripke]] | * [[Saul Kripke]] | ||
+ | * [[Emmanuel Lévinas]] | ||
* [[Gottfried Leibniz]] | * [[Gottfried Leibniz]] | ||
− | * [[David Lewis | + | |width=25%| |
+ | * [[David Kellogg Lewis|David Lewis]] | ||
+ | * [[John Locke]] | ||
+ | * [[Thomas Malthus]] | ||
* [[George Edward Moore]] | * [[George Edward Moore]] | ||
+ | * [[Thomas Nagel]] | ||
+ | * [[Andrés Ortíz-Osés]] | ||
* [[Charles Peirce]] | * [[Charles Peirce]] | ||
− | * [[Robert M. Pirsig]] | + | * [[Robert M. Pirsig]] |
+ | * [[Max Planck]] | ||
+ | * [[Alvin Plantinga]] | ||
* [[Plato]] | * [[Plato]] | ||
− | * [[ | + | * [[Plotinus]] |
* [[Karl Popper]] | * [[Karl Popper]] | ||
− | * [[ | + | * [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] |
− | * [[ | + | * [[Hilary Putnam]] |
+ | |width=25%| | ||
+ | * [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] | ||
* [[Carl Reichenbach]] | * [[Carl Reichenbach]] | ||
+ | * [[Nicholas Rescher]] | ||
* [[Richard Rorty]] | * [[Richard Rorty]] | ||
* [[Bertrand Russell]] | * [[Bertrand Russell]] | ||
− | * [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] | + | * [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] |
− | * [[ | + | * [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] |
− | * [[ | + | * [[Erwin Schrödinger]] |
− | + | * [[John Duns Scotus]] | |
− | + | * [[Wilfrid Sellars]] | |
+ | * [[J. J. C. Smart]] | ||
+ | * [[Baruch Spinoza]] | ||
+ | * [[Paul Tillich]] | ||
+ | * [[Alfred North Whitehead]] | ||
+ | * [[Sir Isaac Newton]] | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | ==See also== | ||
+ | * [[Advaita]] | ||
+ | * [[Dvaita]] | ||
* [[Aesthetics]] | * [[Aesthetics]] | ||
* [[Buddhist philosophy]] | * [[Buddhist philosophy]] | ||
+ | * [[Christian Science]] | ||
+ | * [[Cosmology (metaphysics)|Cosmology]] | ||
+ | * [[Cosmological meaning of human life]] | ||
+ | * [[Common-sense metaphysics]] | ||
* [[Dualism]] | * [[Dualism]] | ||
* [[Eastern philosophy]] | * [[Eastern philosophy]] | ||
* [[Epistemology]] | * [[Epistemology]] | ||
+ | * [[Environmental metaphysics]] | ||
* [[Ethics]] | * [[Ethics]] | ||
− | * [[ | + | * [[Introduction to Metaphysics]] |
+ | * [[Johannes Jacobus Poortman]] | ||
+ | * [[Ken Wilber]] | ||
* [[List of spirituality-related topics]] | * [[List of spirituality-related topics]] | ||
* [[Logical positivism]] | * [[Logical positivism]] | ||
Line 115: | Line 253: | ||
* [[Monism]] | * [[Monism]] | ||
* [[Mysticism]] | * [[Mysticism]] | ||
+ | * [[New Thought Movement]] | ||
* [[Ontology]] | * [[Ontology]] | ||
* [[Philosophy]] | * [[Philosophy]] | ||
* [[Pluralism (philosophy of mind)|Pluralism]] | * [[Pluralism (philosophy of mind)|Pluralism]] | ||
+ | * [[Pratitya-samutpada]] | ||
* [[Reason]] | * [[Reason]] | ||
+ | * [[Religious Science]] | ||
+ | * [[Quantum metaphysics]] | ||
+ | * [[Simulated reality]] | ||
+ | * [[Spiritism]] | ||
* [[Taoism]] | * [[Taoism]] | ||
* [[Theology]] | * [[Theology]] | ||
− | * [[ | + | * [[Theory of everything (philosophy)|Theory of everything]] |
+ | * [[Time Travel]] | ||
+ | * [[Transcendence (religion)|Transcendence]] | ||
+ | * [[Vitalism]] | ||
− | == References == | + | ==Notes== |
+ | <references/> | ||
+ | ==References== | ||
+ | * [[Panayot Butchvarov|Butchvarov, Panayot]] (1979). ''Being Qua Being: A Theory of Identity, Existence and Predication''. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. | ||
+ | * [[Immanuel Kant|Kant, I]] (1781). ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]''. | ||
+ | * Gale, Richard M. (2002). ''The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics''. Oxford: Blackwell. | ||
+ | * Lowe, E. J. (2002). ''A Survey of Metaphysics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | ||
+ | * Loux, M. J. (2006). ''Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction'' (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. | ||
+ | *Kim, J. and [[Ernest Sosa]] Ed. (1999). ''Metaphysics: An Anthology''. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies. | ||
+ | *Kim, J. and [[Ernest Sosa]], Ed. (2000). ''A Companion to Metaphysics''. Malden Massachusetts, Blackwell, Publishers. | ||
− | + | ==External links== | |
− | + | * [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8m/ Aristotle's Metaphysics trans. by W. D. Ross] | |
− | + | * [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Aristot.+Met.+980a Aristotle's Metaphysics trans. by Hugh Tredennick (HTML at Perseus)] | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == External | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | * [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8m/ trans. by W. D. Ross] | ||
− | * [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Aristot.+Met.+980a trans. by Hugh Tredennick (HTML at Perseus)] | ||
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ Aristotle's Metaphysics at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] | * [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ Aristotle's Metaphysics at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] | ||
− | *[http:// | + | *[http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h92e/ Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Mirrored at eBooks@Adelaide] |
− | * | + | * [http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr E-text] (The [[Norman Kemp Smith]] translation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason) |
+ | * [http://websyte.com/alan/march.htm March of Metaphysics] Historical overview orientated to Process thought | ||
+ | * [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry under OBJECT, by Henry Laycock] | ||
+ | * [http://www.websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm Metaphysics: Multiple Meanings] A page that succinctly differentiates between various uses of the term "metaphysics." | ||
− | |||
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
− | [[Category | + | [[Category:philosophy and religion]] |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | {{credit| | + | {{credit|109023037}} |
Revision as of 02:32, 20 February 2007
Metaphysics ( 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 the study of being or reality.[2] It addresses questions such as: What is the nature of reality? What is humankind's place in the universe? Are colors objective or subjective? Does the world exist outside the mind? What is the nature of objects, events, places?
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what categories of things are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used to refer to "subjects which are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore," for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed in metaphysics under the natural philosophy branch. This practice continued until up to the time of Isaac Newton (who was a natural philosopher himself) straight through the 18th century (the term "science" simply meant knowledge prior to the 19th century). However from the 19th century onwards natural philosophy became science, thus changing the definition of metaphysics to mainly include subjects beyond the physical world. Natural philosophy and thus science can still be considered topics of metaphysics, depending on whether or not the definition of the term includes empirical explanations.
History of metaphysics
Referred to as the subject of "first philosophy," the term "metaphysics" is thought to have originated from the works of Aristotle. The editor of his works, Andronicus of Rhodes, placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called these books τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά βιβλια (ta meta ta physika biblia) or, "the books that come after the [books on] physics." This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical."[citation needed] In the English language, the word comes by way of the Medieval Latin metaphysica, the neuter plural of Medieval Greek metaphysika.[3] While its Greek and Latin origins are clear, various dictionaries trace its first appearance in English to the mid 16th-century, in some cases as early as 1387.[3] [4]
Aristotle's Metaphysics was divided into three parts, in addition to some smaller sections related to a philosophical lexicon and some reprinted extracts from the Physics, which are now regarded as the proper branches of traditional Western metaphysics:
- Ontology — the study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.
- Theology — the study of God (or the gods); involves many topics, including among others the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about Creation, and the numerous religious or spiritual issues that concern humankind in general.
- Universal science — the study of first principles, which Aristotle believed to be the foundation of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the law of noncontradiction and the status it holds in non-paraconsistent logics.
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. Essentially "being qua being" may be translated as "being insofar as being goes," or as, "being in terms of being." This includes topics such as causality, substance, species and elements, as well as the notions of relation, interaction, and finitude.
Metaphysics as a discipline was a central part of academic inquiry and scholarly education even before the age of Aristotle. Long considered "the Queen of Sciences," its issues were considered no less important than the other main formal subjects of physical science, medicine, mathematics, poetics and music. Since the beginning of modern philosophy during the 17th-century, problems that were not originally considered within the bounds of metaphysical have been added to its purview, while other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically relegated to their own separate regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.
In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of physics proper (cf. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity).
Central questions of metaphysics
{{#invoke:Message box|ambox}} Most positions that can be taken with regards to any of the following questions are endorsed by one or another notable philosopher. It is often difficult to frame the questions in a non-controversial manner.
Mind and Matter
- See also: matter , materialism , and philosophy of mind
The nature of matter was a problem in its own right in early philosophy. Indeed, it was Aristotle who introduced the idea of matter in general to the Western world, adapting the term hyle which originally meant "lumber". Early debates centred on identifying a single underlying principle. Water was claimed by Thales, Air by Anaximenes, Apeiron (the Boundless) by Anaximander, Fire by Heraclitus. Democritus conceived an atomic theory many centuries before it became scientifically accepted.
Of course, empirical science is now looked to for insights into matter. 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 reality as a whole. René Descartes proposed substance dualism, a theory according to which mind and body are essentially quite different, with the mind having some of the attributes traditionally assigned to the soul, in the 17th 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 rather sweeping proposal to address the mind-body problem is idealism, in which the material is eliminated in favour of the mental. Idealists, such as Bishop 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 20th century exponent of this approach.
Idealism is a monistic theory, in which there is a single universal substance or principles. Neutral monism, associated in different forms with Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell is a theory which seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid the problems of substance dualism. It claims that existence consists of as single substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes — thus it implies a dual-aspect theory.
For the last 100 years, the dominant metaphysics has without a doubt been materialistic monism. Science has demonstrated many ways in which mind and brain interact, but the exact nature of the relationship is still open to debate. Type identity theory, token identity theory, functionalism, reductive physicalism, nonreductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, anomolous 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, Jerry Fodor, David Lewis, Hilary Putnam, John Smart and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Objects and their properties
- Further information: Problem of universals
The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as the British constitution, Greek democracy, and the number "3." Such objects are called particulars. Now, consider two apples. There seem to be many ways in which those two apples are similar, they may be approximately the same size, or shape, or color. They are both fruit, etc. One might also say that the two apples seem to have some thing or things in common. Universals or Properties are said to be those things.
Metaphysicians working on questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. For instance, one might hold that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. Others maintain that what particulars are is a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have).
Identity and change
- For further information, see: Identity, and Philosophy of space and time
The Greeks took some extreme positions on the nature of change: Parmenides denied that change occurs at all, while Heracleitus thought change was ubiquitous — "you cannot step into the same river twice".
Identity, sometimes called Numerical Identity, is the relation that a "thing" bears to itself, and which no "thing" bears to anything other than itself (cf. sameness). According to Leibniz, if some object x is identical to some object y, then any property that x has, y will have as well. However, it seems, too, that objects can change over time. If one were to look at a tree one day, and the tree later lost a leaf, it would seem that one could still be looking at that same tree. Two rival theories to account for the relationship between change and identity are Perdurantism, which treats the tree as a series of tree-stages, and Endurantism which maintains that the tree — the same tree — is present at every stage in its history.
Space and time
A traditional realist position in ontology is that time and space have existence apart from the human mind. Idealists, including Kant claim that space and time are mental constructs used to organise perceptions, or are otherwise unreal.
Suppose that one is sitting at a table, with an apple in front of him or her; the apple exists in space and in time, but what does this statement indicate? Could it be said, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is positioned? Suppose the apple, and all physical objects in the universe, were removed from existence entirely. Would space as an "invisible grid," still exist? René Descartes and Leibniz believed it would not, arguing that without physical objects, "space" would be meaningless because space is the framework upon which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. Newton, on the other hand, argued for an absolute "container" space. The pendulum swung back to relational space with Einstein and Ernst Mach.
While the absolute/relative debate, and the realism debate are equally applicable to time and space, time presents some special problems of its own. The flow of time has been denied in ancient times by Parmenides and more recently by J. M. E. McTaggart in his paper The Unreality of Time.
The direction of time, or time's arrow, is also a puzzle, although physics is now driving the debate rather than philosophy. It appears that fundamental laws are time-reversible and the arrow of time must be an "emergent" phenomenon, perhaps explained by thermodynamics.
Common-sense tells us that objects persist across time, that there is some sense in which you are the same person you were yesterday, in which the oak is the same as the acorn, in which you perhaps even can step into the same river twice. Philosophers have developed two rival theories for how this happens, called "endurantism" and "perdurantism". Broadly speaking, endurantists hold that a whole object exists at each moment of its history, and the same object exist at each moment. Perdurantists believe that objects 4-dimensional entities made up of a series of Temporal Parts like the frames of a movie.
Religion and spirituality
Theology is the study of God (or the gods) and of questions about the divine. Is there one God (monotheism), many (polytheism) or none (atheism)? Does the Divine intervene (theism), or not (deism). Are God and the World different or identical (pantheism)?
Metaphysics can be practised within a theological framework, for instance scholasticism; alternatively, theological questions can be considered from a metaphysical perspective.
Necessity and possibility
- See also: Modal logic and Modal realism
Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. David Lewis, in "On the Plurality of Worlds," endorsed a view called Concrete Modal realism, according to which facts about how things could have been are made true by other concrete worlds, just like ours, in which things are different. Other philosophers, such as Gottfried Leibniz, have dealt with the idea of possible worlds as well. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds; that is, we could not imagine it to be otherwise. A possible fact is one that is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed. By contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as analytic propositions, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried." The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less controversial view might be that self-identity is necessary, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any x, it is not identical to itself; this is known as the principle of contradiction. Aristotle describes the principle of contradiction, "It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing . . . This is the most certain of all principles . . . Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms."
Abstract Objects and Mathematics
- See also: Nominalism , Platonism , and Philosophy of mathematics
Some philosophers endorse views according to which there are abstract objects such as numbers, or Universals. (Universals are properties that can be instantiated by mutliple objects, such as redness or squareness). Abstract objects are generally regarded as being outside of space and time, and/or as being causally inert. Mathematical objects and fictional entities and worlds are often given as examples of abstract objects. The view that there really are no abstract objects is called nominalism. Realism about such objects is exemplified by Platonism. Other positions include moderate realism, as espoused by Aristotle, and conceptualism.
The philosophy of mathematics overlaps with metaphysics because some positions are realistic in the sense that they hold that mathematical objects really exist — whether transcendentally, physically, or mentally. Platonic realism holds that mathematical entities are a transcendent realm of non-physical objects. The simplest form of mathematical empiricism claims that mathematical objects are just ordinary physical objects — squares are just square things and so on. Plato rejected this view, among other reasons, because geometrical figures in mathematics have a perfection that no physical instantiation can capture. Modern mathematicians have developed many strange and complex mathematical structures with no counterparts in observable reality, further underminining this view. The third main form of realism holds that mathematical entities exist in the mind. however, given a materialistic conception of the mind, it does not have the capacity to literally contain the many infinities of objects in mathematics. Intuitionism, inspired by Kant, sticks with the idea that "there are no non-experienced mathematical truths". This involves rejecting as intuitionistically unacceptable anything that cannot be held in the mind or explicitly constructed. Intuitionists reject the law of the excluded middle and are suspicious of infinity, particularly of transfinite numbers.
Other positions such as formalism and fictionalism are anti-realist — they basically do not attribute any existence to mathematical entities.
Determinism and Free Will
- See also: Determinism and Free will
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. It holds that no random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. The principal consequence of the deterministic claim is that it poses a challenge to the existence of free will.
The problem of free will is the problem of whether rational agents exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. Some philosophers, called Incompatibilists view determinism and free will as mutually exclusive. If they believe in determinism, they will therefore believe free will to be an illusion, a position known as Hard Determinism. Proponents range from Baruch Spinoza to Ted Honderich.
Others, labeled Compatibilists, (or Soft Determinists) believe that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled. Adherents of this view include Thomas Hobbes and many modern philosophers.
Incompatibilists who accept free will but reject determinism are called Libertarians — not to be confused with the political sense. Robert Kane is one of the few modern defenders of this theory.
It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism); However determinists believe that the level to which human beings have influence over their future, is itself dependent on present and past.
Cosmology and Cosmogony
Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern use it addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. dialectics). Cosmogony deals specifically with the origin of the universe.
Modern metaphysical cosmology and cosmogony try to address questions such as:
- What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism, pantheism, emanationism and creationism)
- What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)
- What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see teleology)
Criticism
Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague. David Hume went so far as to write:
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion".
- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Immanuel Kant prescribed a limited role to the subject and argued against knowledge progressing beyond the world of our representations, except to knowledge that the noumena exist: "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."
- Critique of Pure Reason pp. Bxxvi-xxvii.
A.J. Ayer is famous for leading a "revolt against metaphysics," where he claimed that its propositions were meaningless in his book "Language, Truth and Logic". British universities became less concerned with the area for much of the 20th century. However, metaphysics has seen a reemergence in recent times amongst philosophy departments.
A more nuanced view is that metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather that they are generally not fallible, testable or provable statements (see Karl Popper). That is to say, there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could definitively prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That idea could be changed in a non-arbitrary way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally force a change in that idea, in the sense of definitely proving it false.
Metaphysical subdisciplines
- Natural philosophy
- Ontology
- Philosophy of religion
- Philosophy of mind
- Philosophy of perception
Metaphysical topics and problems
- Identity and change
- Problem of free will
- The nature of time
- The nature of the mind
Notable metaphysicians
See also
- Advaita
- Dvaita
- Aesthetics
- Buddhist philosophy
- Christian Science
- Cosmology
- Cosmological meaning of human life
- Common-sense metaphysics
- Dualism
- Eastern philosophy
- Epistemology
- Environmental metaphysics
- Ethics
- Introduction to Metaphysics
- Johannes Jacobus Poortman
- Ken Wilber
- List of spirituality-related topics
- Logical positivism
- Metaphysics of Quality
- Monism
- Mysticism
- New Thought Movement
- Ontology
- Philosophy
- Pluralism
- Pratitya-samutpada
- Reason
- Religious Science
- Quantum metaphysics
- Simulated reality
- Spiritism
- Taoism
- Theology
- Theory of everything
- Time Travel
- Transcendence
- Vitalism
Notes
- ↑ That is, the articles concerning what Aristotle called the "first philosophy", and what we now call metaphysics, were several articles that appeared after his articles on nature, which was called physics. Therefore since the articles on the "first philosophy" came after the physics articles, the subject was called "metaphysics".
- ↑ Geisler, Norman L. "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" page 446. Baker Books, 1999
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Douglas Harper. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved August 29, 2006.
- ↑ Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved August 29, 2006.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Butchvarov, Panayot (1979). Being Qua Being: A Theory of Identity, Existence and Predication. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.
- Kant, I (1781). Critique of Pure Reason.
- Gale, Richard M. (2002). The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Lowe, E. J. (2002). A Survey of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Loux, M. J. (2006). Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
- Kim, J. and Ernest Sosa Ed. (1999). Metaphysics: An Anthology. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies.
- Kim, J. and Ernest Sosa, Ed. (2000). A Companion to Metaphysics. Malden Massachusetts, Blackwell, Publishers.
External links
- Aristotle's Metaphysics trans. by W. D. Ross
- Aristotle's Metaphysics trans. by Hugh Tredennick (HTML at Perseus)
- Aristotle's Metaphysics at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Mirrored at eBooks@Adelaide
- E-text (The Norman Kemp Smith translation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason)
- March of Metaphysics Historical overview orientated to Process thought
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry under OBJECT, by Henry Laycock
- Metaphysics: Multiple Meanings A page that succinctly differentiates between various uses of the term "metaphysics."
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.