
#REDIRECT Metaphysics
Metaphysics (Greek language words ''meta'' = after/beyond and ''physics'' = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first principles" and "being" (ontology). Problems that were not originally considered metaphysical have been added to metaphysics. Other problems that were considered metaphysical problems for centuries are now typically relegated to their own separate subheadings in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. In rare cases subjects of metaphysical research have been found to be entirely physical and natural. What might be called the ''core'' metaphysical problems would be the ones which have ''always'' been considered metaphysical and which have ''never'' been considered ''not'' metaphysical. What most of such problems have in common is that they are the problems of ''ontology,'' "the science of being ''wikt:qua'' being". 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''. In modern times, the meaning of the word ''metaphysics'' has become confused by popular significations that are really unrelated to metaphysics or ontology ''per se'', viz. esotericism and occult. Esotericism and occultism, in their many forms, are not so much concerned with inquiries into first principles or the nature of being, though they do tend to proceed on the metaphysical assumption that all being is "one". ==The origin of the word 'metaphysics'== The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle produced a number of works which together were called the ''Physics''. In an early edition, the works of Aristotle were organized in such a way that another set of works was placed right after the ''Physics.'' These books seemed to concern a basic, fundamental area of philosophical inquiry, which at the time did not have a name; Aristotle himself just called it "first philosophy". So early Aristotelian scholars called those books τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "ta meta ta physika", which means "the (books that come) after the (books about) physics." That is the origin of the word 'metaphysics' (in Greek language, μεταφυσικά). Hence, etymology speaking, metaphysics is the subject of those books by Aristotle which were called, collectively, the ''Metaphysics''. Technically, it was so named because it came after the book of Physics. But the actual subject matter in the book, perhaps coincidentally, are on the topic of things that underlie the physical—"beyond" the physical, so to speak—therefore fitting the word in two ways. The ''Metaphysics'' was divided into three parts, now regarded as the traditional branches of Western metaphysics, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science. There were also some smaller, perhaps tangential matters: a philosophical lexicon, an attempt to define philosophy in general, and several extracts from the ''Physics'' repeated verbatim. * ''Ontology'' is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as 'the science of being ''qua'' being'. * ''Theology'' means, here, the study of God or the gods and of questions about the divine. * ''Universal science'' is supposed to be the study of so-called Aristotelian first principless, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the law of non-contradiction: ''A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, and in the same respect.'' A particular apple cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be all red and all green at the same time. 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. This includes matters like causality, substance, species, and elements. ==Examples== It is sometimes difficult to understand what the issues even ''are'', in metaphysics. It might help to begin with a fairly simple example that will help to introduce the problems of metaphysics. Imagine now that we are in a room, and in the middle of the room there is a table, and in the middle of the table there is a big, fresh, juicy, red apple. We can ask many ''metaphysical'' questions about this apple. This will, hopefully, help us understand better what metaphysics is. The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: one can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on. It occupies spacetime and has a variety of property. Suppose we ask: ''what'' ''are'' physical objects? This might seem like the sort of question to which one ''cannot'' give an answer ("What is, what is?"). What could one possibly use to explain what physical objects are? But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are. They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties? Or are they substances which ''have'' those properties? That is called the ''problem of substance'' or ''objecthood''. Here is another sort of question. We said that the apple has ''properties'', like being red, being big, being juicy. How are properties different from objects? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness. But apples and redness are different sorts of items, of things, of entities. One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red ''things.'' So how can we best think about what properties ''are''? This is called the ''problem of universals''. Here is another question about what physical objects are: when ''in'' ''general'' can we say that physical objects ''come'' ''into'' ''being'' and when they ''cease'' ''to'' ''exist''? Surely the apple can ''change'' in many ways without ceasing to exist. It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple. But if someone ate it, it would not just have changed; it would no longer exist. So there are some metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change. This apple exists in space (it sits on a table in a room) and in time (it was not on the table a week ago and it will not be on the table a week from now). But what does this talk of space and time mean? Can we say, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is located? Suppose the apple, and every other physical object in the universe, were to be entirely removed from existence: then would space, that "invisible grid," still exist? Some people say not—they say that without physical objects, space would not exist, because space is the framework in which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. There are many other metaphysical questions to ask about space and time. There are some other, very different sorts of problems in metaphysics. The apple is one sort of thing; now if Sally is in the room, and we say Sally has a mind, we are surely going to say that Sally's mind is a different sort of thing from the apple (if it is a sort of ''thing'' at all). I might say that my mind is immaterial, but the apple is a material object, (although there is much disagreement amongst philosophers about the metaphysical status of minds). Moreover, it sounds a little strange to say that Sally's mind is located in any ''particular'' ''place''; maybe we could say it is somewhere in the room; but the apple is obviously located in a particular place, namely on the middle of the table. It ''seems'' clear that minds are fundamentally different from physical body. But if so, how can something mental, like a decision to eat, cause a physical event to occur, like biting down on the apple? How are the mind and body Causality interconnected if they are two totally different sorts of things? This is called the ''mind-body problem'', which is now typically relegated to a philosophical subdiscipline called ''philosophy of mind.'' The mind-body problem is sometimes still considered part of metaphysics, however. ==Criticisms== Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague. Lord Byron often mocked the subject in his works. David Hume and Immanuel Kant both prescribed a limited role to the subject and argued against knowledge progressing beyond the world of our representations [except, in the case of Kant, to knowledge that the ''noumena'' exist]. A.J.Ayer is famous for leading a "revolt against metaphysics", where he claimed that its propositions were meaningless. Martin Heidegger often criticised metaphysics, yet he dealt with questions that many would consider to be metaphysical. British universities became less concerned with the area for much of the 20th century, but it has revived itself in recent times, amongst philosophy departments ==Metaphysical subdisciplines== *Ontology *Philosophy of religion *Philosophy of mind *Philosophy of perception ==Metaphysical topics and problems== *Identity and change ==Metaphysical jargon== *Abstract *Being *Category of being *Concrete ==People== *Aristotle *Saint Thomas Aquinas, eminent Catholic metaphysician *Louis-Victor de Broglie *William Kingdon Clifford *Donald Davidson (philosopher) *René Descartes, famous for the assertion ''cogito, ergo sum'' ("I'm thinking, therefore I exist.") *Albert Einstein, developed the Theory of Relativity, which asserted mathematics that there is no absolute frame of reference *Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, formulated a complex non-Aristotelian metaphysics based on dialectics *Martin Heidegger *Werner Heisenberg *[http://www.zorena.net Zorena Kirkendoll] *Saul Kripke *Gottfried Leibniz *David Lewis (philosopher) *George Edward Moore *William Luther Pierce *Robert M. Pirsig, Author of the popular ''Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'', which established the theory of reality known as the Metaphysics of Quality *Plato *Max Planck *Karl Popper *W. V. Quine *Ayn Rand *Carl Reichenbach *Richard Rorty *Bertrand Russell *Jean-Paul Sartre, author of seminal existentialist text ''Being and Nothingness'' *Erwin Schrödinger, quantum mechanics, suggested the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment *Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching ==See also== *Aesthetics *Buddhist philosophy *Dualism *Eastern philosophy *Epistemology *Ethics *Fractal metaphysics *List of spirituality-related topics *Logical positivism *Metaphysics of Quality *Monism *Mysticism *Ontology *Philosophy *Pluralism (philosophy of mind) *Reason *Taoism *Theology *Transcendental ==References== * Lowe, E. J. (2002). ''A survey of metaphysics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. * Loux, M. J. (2002). ''Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction'' (2nd 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://www.galilean-library.org/int3.html Metaphysics 1] and [http://www.galilean-library.org/int19.html Metaphysics 2], Introductions to Metaphysics by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. * [http://www.formalontology.it Ontology. A resource guide for philosophers] * [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] Philosophy Metaphysics Aristotle bn:অধিবিদ্যা la:Metaphysica
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. --User:Joaquin Miller 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. --User:Lee Daniel Crocker 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. User: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 (philosopher), :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? --User: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. --User:Lee Daniel Crocker ---- 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... --User: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. :-) ---- ==WikiProject Philosophy== I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to coordinate the efforts of philosophically-inclined contributors. If you are so inclined, please consider dropping by Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, or visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy to share your thoughts. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) From the article: ----
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy, that studies the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality. Branches of philosophy
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Metaphysics:
MetaPhysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics/Introduction
Metaphysics_of_presence
Metaphysics_of_Quality
Metaphysics_of_Quality
Metaphysics_of_quality
Metaphysics_of_quality
MetaPhysics
#REDIRECT Metaphysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics (Greek language words ''meta'' = after/beyond and ''physics'' = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first principles" and "being" (ontology). Problems that were not originally considered metaphysical have been added to metaphysics. Other problems that were considered metaphysical problems for centuries are now typically relegated to their own separate subheadings in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. In rare cases subjects of metaphysical research have been found to be entirely physical and natural. What might be called the ''core'' metaphysical problems would be the ones which have ''always'' been considered metaphysical and which have ''never'' been considered ''not'' metaphysical. What most of such problems have in common is that they are the problems of ''ontology,'' "the science of being ''wikt:qua'' being". 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''. In modern times, the meaning of the word ''metaphysics'' has become confused by popular significations that are really unrelated to metaphysics or ontology ''per se'', viz. esotericism and occult. Esotericism and occultism, in their many forms, are not so much concerned with inquiries into first principles or the nature of being, though they do tend to proceed on the metaphysical assumption that all being is "one". ==The origin of the word 'metaphysics'== The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle produced a number of works which together were called the ''Physics''. In an early edition, the works of Aristotle were organized in such a way that another set of works was placed right after the ''Physics.'' These books seemed to concern a basic, fundamental area of philosophical inquiry, which at the time did not have a name; Aristotle himself just called it "first philosophy". So early Aristotelian scholars called those books τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "ta meta ta physika", which means "the (books that come) after the (books about) physics." That is the origin of the word 'metaphysics' (in Greek language, μεταφυσικά). Hence, etymology speaking, metaphysics is the subject of those books by Aristotle which were called, collectively, the ''Metaphysics''. Technically, it was so named because it came after the book of Physics. But the actual subject matter in the book, perhaps coincidentally, are on the topic of things that underlie the physical—"beyond" the physical, so to speak—therefore fitting the word in two ways. The ''Metaphysics'' was divided into three parts, now regarded as the traditional branches of Western metaphysics, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science. There were also some smaller, perhaps tangential matters: a philosophical lexicon, an attempt to define philosophy in general, and several extracts from the ''Physics'' repeated verbatim. * ''Ontology'' is the study of existence; it has been traditionally defined as 'the science of being ''qua'' being'. * ''Theology'' means, here, the study of God or the gods and of questions about the divine. * ''Universal science'' is supposed to be the study of so-called Aristotelian first principless, which underlie all other inquiries; an example of such a principle is the law of non-contradiction: ''A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, and in the same respect.'' A particular apple cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. It can't be all red and all green at the same time. 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. This includes matters like causality, substance, species, and elements. ==Examples== It is sometimes difficult to understand what the issues even ''are'', in metaphysics. It might help to begin with a fairly simple example that will help to introduce the problems of metaphysics. Imagine now that we are in a room, and in the middle of the room there is a table, and in the middle of the table there is a big, fresh, juicy, red apple. We can ask many ''metaphysical'' questions about this apple. This will, hopefully, help us understand better what metaphysics is. The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: one can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on. It occupies spacetime and has a variety of property. Suppose we ask: ''what'' ''are'' physical objects? This might seem like the sort of question to which one ''cannot'' give an answer ("What is, what is?"). What could one possibly use to explain what physical objects are? But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are. They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties? Or are they substances which ''have'' those properties? That is called the ''problem of substance'' or ''objecthood''. Here is another sort of question. We said that the apple has ''properties'', like being red, being big, being juicy. How are properties different from objects? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness. But apples and redness are different sorts of items, of things, of entities. One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red ''things.'' So how can we best think about what properties ''are''? This is called the ''problem of universals''. Here is another question about what physical objects are: when ''in'' ''general'' can we say that physical objects ''come'' ''into'' ''being'' and when they ''cease'' ''to'' ''exist''? Surely the apple can ''change'' in many ways without ceasing to exist. It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple. But if someone ate it, it would not just have changed; it would no longer exist. So there are some metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change. This apple exists in space (it sits on a table in a room) and in time (it was not on the table a week ago and it will not be on the table a week from now). But what does this talk of space and time mean? Can we say, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is located? Suppose the apple, and every other physical object in the universe, were to be entirely removed from existence: then would space, that "invisible grid," still exist? Some people say not—they say that without physical objects, space would not exist, because space is the framework in which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. There are many other metaphysical questions to ask about space and time. There are some other, very different sorts of problems in metaphysics. The apple is one sort of thing; now if Sally is in the room, and we say Sally has a mind, we are surely going to say that Sally's mind is a different sort of thing from the apple (if it is a sort of ''thing'' at all). I might say that my mind is immaterial, but the apple is a material object, (although there is much disagreement amongst philosophers about the metaphysical status of minds). Moreover, it sounds a little strange to say that Sally's mind is located in any ''particular'' ''place''; maybe we could say it is somewhere in the room; but the apple is obviously located in a particular place, namely on the middle of the table. It ''seems'' clear that minds are fundamentally different from physical body. But if so, how can something mental, like a decision to eat, cause a physical event to occur, like biting down on the apple? How are the mind and body Causality interconnected if they are two totally different sorts of things? This is called the ''mind-body problem'', which is now typically relegated to a philosophical subdiscipline called ''philosophy of mind.'' The mind-body problem is sometimes still considered part of metaphysics, however. ==Criticisms== Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague. Lord Byron often mocked the subject in his works. David Hume and Immanuel Kant both prescribed a limited role to the subject and argued against knowledge progressing beyond the world of our representations [except, in the case of Kant, to knowledge that the ''noumena'' exist]. A.J.Ayer is famous for leading a "revolt against metaphysics", where he claimed that its propositions were meaningless. Martin Heidegger often criticised metaphysics, yet he dealt with questions that many would consider to be metaphysical. British universities became less concerned with the area for much of the 20th century, but it has revived itself in recent times, amongst philosophy departments ==Metaphysical subdisciplines== *Ontology *Philosophy of religion *Philosophy of mind *Philosophy of perception ==Metaphysical topics and problems== *Identity and change ==Metaphysical jargon== *Abstract *Being *Category of being *Concrete ==People== *Aristotle *Saint Thomas Aquinas, eminent Catholic metaphysician *Louis-Victor de Broglie *William Kingdon Clifford *Donald Davidson (philosopher) *René Descartes, famous for the assertion ''cogito, ergo sum'' ("I'm thinking, therefore I exist.") *Albert Einstein, developed the Theory of Relativity, which asserted mathematics that there is no absolute frame of reference *Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, formulated a complex non-Aristotelian metaphysics based on dialectics *Martin Heidegger *Werner Heisenberg *[http://www.zorena.net Zorena Kirkendoll] *Saul Kripke *Gottfried Leibniz *David Lewis (philosopher) *George Edward Moore *William Luther Pierce *Robert M. Pirsig, Author of the popular ''Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'', which established the theory of reality known as the Metaphysics of Quality *Plato *Max Planck *Karl Popper *W. V. Quine *Ayn Rand *Carl Reichenbach *Richard Rorty *Bertrand Russell *Jean-Paul Sartre, author of seminal existentialist text ''Being and Nothingness'' *Erwin Schrödinger, quantum mechanics, suggested the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment *Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching ==See also== *Aesthetics *Buddhist philosophy *Dualism *Eastern philosophy *Epistemology *Ethics *Fractal metaphysics *List of spirituality-related topics *Logical positivism *Metaphysics of Quality *Monism *Mysticism *Ontology *Philosophy *Pluralism (philosophy of mind) *Reason *Taoism *Theology *Transcendental ==References== * Lowe, E. J. (2002). ''A survey of metaphysics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. * Loux, M. J. (2002). ''Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction'' (2nd 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://www.galilean-library.org/int3.html Metaphysics 1] and [http://www.galilean-library.org/int19.html Metaphysics 2], Introductions to Metaphysics by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. * [http://www.formalontology.it Ontology. A resource guide for philosophers] * [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] Philosophy Metaphysics Aristotle bn:অধিবিদ্যা la:Metaphysica
Metaphysics
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. --User:Joaquin Miller 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. --User:Lee Daniel Crocker 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. User: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 (philosopher), :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? --User: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. --User:Lee Daniel Crocker ---- 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... --User: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. :-) ---- ==WikiProject Philosophy== I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to coordinate the efforts of philosophically-inclined contributors. If you are so inclined, please consider dropping by Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, or visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy to share your thoughts. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) From the article: ----
A number of physicists deny the plausibility of a god but in their writings clearly suggests the contrary. * William Kingdon Clifford * Heisenberg * Schroedinger * Albert Einstein * De Brogue * Planck---- I don't know who put this here, but it seems completely out of place. Metaphysics would only tangentally involve the question of the existence of God, and there are other places on the Wiki to discuss such things. Besides, this is totally out of context. Why are we suddenly talking about physicists? What is the source for this "information" that their writings suggest the contrary? I'm not going to just delete this, but I think it needs to be discussed. :Who is De Brogue? Did the author mean Louis-Victor de Broglie? User:Millerc 23:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- I'm not cetain that "mysticism" is a proper or recognizable form of metaphysics. Other terms are listed that makes it unnecessary I think. ''So early Aristotelian scholars called those books τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "ta meta ta physika", which means "the (books that come) after the (books about) physics." That, then, is the origin of the word 'metaphysics' (in Greek, μεταφυσικά).'' I've heard that this etymology is considered controversial in some quarters. Has anyone else heard likewise, or am I going to have to (egad) do some research? --User:Christofurio 00:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy, that studies the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality. Branches of philosophy
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Metaphysics:
MetaPhysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics/Introduction
Metaphysics_of_presence
Metaphysics_of_Quality
Metaphysics_of_Quality
Metaphysics_of_quality
Metaphysics_of_quality
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
