Metaphysics
Come to the mandatory seminars.
Some philosophers claim that metaphysics have certain exclusive objects, like in Kantianism there is the supersensible, sometimes they will even say that it deals with what is supernatural.
Unamuno is a guy, he wanted intuitional metaphysics. Vienna circle argued metaphysics lacked rationality and is stupid.
Professor does not like the vienna circle. Fine, me neither.
Aristotle.
Wrote a famous lecture series called ’metaphysics’, or was called metaphysics much later. It was chosen by the first editor of his collected works, Andronicus of Rhodes. Andronicus ordered the lecture manuscripts, and next to physics was metaphysics, that is what is next to physics, or is to be read after physics. If you understand physics basically, you can understand metaphysics.
The general unity of the metaphysics lecture series is a matter of scholarly debate, many argue that there was no such discipline in Aristotle.
Thomas Aquinas argues that there is a strong relation and systematic series to the lecture series.
The Greek term ’meta’, from ’meta ta physica’, can also mean beyond however. That is, what is beyond the immediately available physics, it escapes the theoretical means of it. This approaches the platonic or neo-platonic tradition, which argues that the task of philosophers is to leave the physical behind and reach the higher level of Being – eternal and unchanging. Many platonists take this interpretation as a matter of fact that cannot be disputed. It can though.
Meta can however also mean ’about’, meaning that the book is actually called ’about physics’.This view has become popular again recently in the so-called program of naturalising philosophy, like Quine, who opposed metaphysics. The quinean school however generally developed into a more metaphysically accepting school. They believe metaphysics is about ontological committments, not just conceptual but really ontological. The objects that the concepts refer to must exist. If one does gene research, you are committed to the ontological claim that genes exist, and theologican to the idea that God exists.
Aristotle calls this discipline the ’science of being qua being’, or ’theology’, explaining that this is the kind of knowledge we would ascribe to God if there was one.
James Ladyman, a trained scientist with a strong background in physics, defends the idea that metaphysics is the ontology of physics. This also goes back to Aristotle.
The very notion of chemical element presupposes the element of matter, and this may be a genuine task of metaphysics to work with, and which no other discipline can account for.
Aristotle had doubts about whether mathematics does apply to physics in a rigorous manner.
The general idea may be that there are primitive concepts in every science, even if they are not primitive considered in and of themselves, which may implicate the discipline of metaphysics generally – especially about what it means for an object to refer to a concept and whether these objects exists.
Aristotle argues that if everything is material, then metaphysics and physics become more or less identical, despite still bearing a conceptual difference. Metaphysics considers matter as being, whereas physics considers matter as being in motion.
The experiments that metaphysicians engage in, at least in analytic philosophy, are thought experiments – kind. Lots of caveats like usual.
Rather than asking whether metaphysics is science because it has experiments, it may be wiser to ask whether metaphysics can have a scientific method, or can be one fundamentally.
Some say metaphysics is armchair reflection, closing your eyes and figuring out how the world works. It’s probably more akin to a rational exploration of the logically sound possibilities of the world.
The method of metaphysics is fundamentally dialectical according to Aristotle.
In dialectical thinking, there is reason not to adopt both coherent and incoherent positions. Aristotle defends metaphysics as a kind of rigid science, which consists in the rigidity of argumentation.
One has to always think about what problems are solved by metaphysics and which are created by its solutions.
The intended learning outcome is basically to be able to pick out the views we ourselves find most convincing.
Metaphysics always starts with logic and then onto the principles of rationality.
Principle of non-contradiction → greatest law of metaphysics.
Metaphysics unifies. It gives us a unifying standpoint, in a conceptually defensible manner, which is rational and responsible.
Each scientific discipline is defined by two things, its subject matter and its method. This leaves room for the possibility of two possible disciplines with the same subject matter but with different methods. This remains valid.
Ultimately, the subject matter somehow dictates the method. There is not an infinite amount of methods to any matter. Not every object of thought can be a subjected to experiments.
There are some objectmatters that necessitates certain approaches.
Concepts are defined, and therefore a definition of a certain kind of object singles out the object of its study.
If we think of mathematics, it is about everything that is quantifiable. No matter whether it is arithmetic, algebra etc. it is always about this general thing. Therefore Aristotle argues that mathematics studies being insofar as it is quantifiable. This applies to physics insofar as physics is quantifiable, as it is in modernity.
Mathematics focuses on certain features and ignores others. It is not a science of motion. It deals with eternal objects.
Aristotle liked biology the most; deals with life → it deals with being insofar as it is alive. This means that non-living objects are not generally a topic of biology. The focus of the topic is living phenomena.
Musicology, the study of being insofar as it is in harmony.
Aristotle has a pretty long list of these sciences. There is no science Aristotle finds, that treats being qua being. All the other sciences just study being insofar as x (being excluded).
Can’t we just add everything up? Can’t metaphysics just be replaced by the totality of other disciplines? Aristotle says ’nOpe’. A biologist can however not be responsible for creating coherence with physics, because they abstract away this matter in terms of their study.
Yet we need this coherence, and the only way to create it, is to think of the definition of science as a science of being. If this is the case, then we should be able to give an account of being insofar as it is.
We cannot trust scientific disciplines unless they have an overarching science of the sciences.
In the 20th century it was dismissed as relevant, but now a days it is quite accepted.
Either materialism is true, at which point everything is made off of material, or materialism is false, in which case there are either material objects and something else, or there are no material objects.
Usually we are not shadowboxing: real thinkers and real proposals.
First we will do Thinking and Being, and their relationship. Principles of being, and logic; logic as a methodological framework. This will bring us to the very important notion of a category. The most universal kind of entity.
Then we will do universals, the nature and ontological status of universals. Categories are concepts and concepts are universals.
The platonic view is that the universals refer to a distinct realm of reality that is superior to the realm of particulars. This is the realm of Ideas.
Another issue, when thinking of being qua being, not everything that exists is on the same ontological level probably. It seems there are dependent and independent entities. Qualities are not freefloating entities, but are a quality of some intented thing. Basic entities, or independent entities are probably not qualities.
There is a finite number of potential basic entities.
Essentialism: what accounts for the being of beings are the beings essences. So what has an essence is what matters. Then their is also anti-essentialism, which I don’t really know about tbh.
The ontology of time and space: something that a metaphysician ought to have an opinion about. Do they presuppose each other? In CPR this is the argument.
Causation. Hume is famous for his doubts about the general notion of causation. Professor thinks we cannot be without the notions of cause and effect. Causal relations are more or less a reality test according to some philosophers. For something to exist, it must have causal relations to other things that exist. If there is no causal link, arguably, the object in question does not exist.
Modality: contingency and necessity. Modal logic specifically deals with these very often. Timothy Williams argues that metaphysics is basically applied modal logic. Many argues that this is not the csae however. There is probably a modal dimension to reality however.
Neo-realism argues that everything is contingent.
Is everything necessary? Some varieties of determinism may argue this.
Special metaphysics: more controversial topics, like the soul. We will try to solve the principle of life. It seems necessary to ask the question about whether the soul is the principle causation of life then, and in relation what happens to the soul at death.
Does God, or some divine being, exist?; some people believe there are no arguments for or against, and at that point God is not a metaphysical question anymore. Natural theology argue the opposite and say that there are strong arguments for and agianst the existence of God.
Natural law theory, argues that the principles of ethics are metaphysically there and real just as other things. There are metaphysical principles which tell us what is just and unjust.
Legal positivism argues that there is no natural law and that law is fundamentally arbitrary or situational.
Habermas presents a history of philosophy as a history of metaphysics. You can see that his basic idea is that metaphysics has a religious dimension, and basically that it emerges from the commentaries of the priests who write about their holy texts.
Habermas wants to argue that ultimately we see that there is this strong language, you make strong claims about what reality is like. Reality can generally only be the way in which it is presented. Habermas argues that this is the same thing as the strong language of religious committment. He argues basically that metaphysics does not modify itself slowly together with new experiences and achievements. For him, metaphysics is the history of the overcoming of religion into secularisation and disillusion with reality.
Aristotle asks, where does Science originate? Well it originated in Egypt and Babylon, the priests there had a lot of leisure. So they could unfold their intellectual curiosity and raise unraised questions and make new observations. Why did the priests have that kind of time though? Did people just decide to give a strata of the population total free time? Don’t think so.
One point in Habermas though is that metaphysics often has discussed religious issues, but in reality this is not the case at all. Many presocratic philosophers were persecuted because they contradicted religious authorities, and were not discussing religion at all.
In many cases in the middle ages, there was quite a clear divide between philosophy on the one hand, almost even as its own religion, and the theological authorities. In Islam there is a long history of excluding philosophy, also so in Judaism. There is a complicated relationship in christianity of friendship, censorship and control on philosophy. A good christian should not engage with philosophy because it distracts you from faith.
What can be proven wrong in metaphysics, can still be proven true in religion; the idea of the two truths.
Fides is superior to reason. One can hold beliefs even though you are convinced that they are unreasonable. Fideism is not the only game in town.
We should also avoid the cliche of theology as pure dogmatism. This simply condemns people for no real argumentative reason.
Thomas Aquinas presents the exercise in the contra gentiles, in which he discusses metaphysical and religious views from the standpoint of metaphysics. He says that if there is a disagreement, then you have a rational structure, and you can probably compare the diverging convictions that constitue the disagreement. In some cases, we may be able to reject a certain position. Aquinas is convinced that you can reject polytheism as purely incoherent.
If this is the case, then polytheism must be abandoned, and monotheism may then be the survivor, and atheism its rival. And maybe you can argue that atheism is impossible, but then we get into the question of why there are a lot of different versions of monotheism.
Like the rigid version of monotheism of Islam and Judaism, whilst Christians believe in a triune God. Triune for muslims is just a pretty contradiction. It is either one or it is three.
The Jews are a bit uncertain about what the Christians say.
Aquinas argues that philosophy can help. We cannot prove that the trinity is true, it is beyond truth and it is an article of faith. But what philosophy can do is show that the doctrine is coherent. So that someone who belives in the trinity are not in a contradiction.
Both the muslims and the jews believe that ideas of christology are incoherent, whilst christians argue that they can show that it is not incoherent. On the face of it, many christian doctrines do not recommend themselves, but there may be rational and coherent ways to hold them. Coherence is not truth, but is necessary for truth.
Reduction vs. Reductionism.
In order to do science, you need abstraction, that is focus. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, one puts to one side things that are irrelevent. Suppose that architecture is not immediately relevent for musicology. They seem unrelated (except for acoustics). We reduce complexity by not considering potential implications and this is rational procedure. Metaphysics is no exception. Later on we will encounter an argument for the idea that accidental things do not matter for metaphysics. Things that can be this or that way are not related to the fundamental principles of reality (Aristotle).
Aristotle argues that this is not a dangerous conclusion, because if we speak of the general, we are always speaking of the accidentals as well.
Adorno complains that metaphysics is a reductive enterprise, because it does not consider individuality as individuality. Aristotle thinks this is a stupid conclusion, and not even philosophy.
Reductionism is a pejorative term that means that a position is explaining away aspects of reality they are not interested in. Most philosophers are critical of reductionism as a kind of unsound procedure. Richard Rorty once said that ’well if metaphysical issues are addressed, I usually switch topic.’ This is a clear defense of reductionism.
20th century philosophy kinda sucks for metaphysics.