Metaphysics

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-23 05:20pm

OK, metaphysics has come up a few times, so I just wanted to post this, since it was defined and explained by my philosophy professor today.

Metaphysics does not mean "above physics," contrary to popular belief. Metaphysics was first used as the title of a book by Aristotle. Aristotle's previous book had been his book on nature, titled Physics (actually "Physis," Greek for Nature, but I'll translate to English). His second book was on what it means to be (being qua being), what is the highest being like, and what are the limits of being. This book was not given a title by Aristotle. However, scholars called it the Metaphysics, meaning literally "After Physics," since it was the book written after Physics.

Modern metaphysics is divided into general and special metaphysics. General metaphysics concerns itself with the nature of being and the limits of being, two of Aristotle's three questions. It also poses questions about the relationship between concrete objects and "general objects," or how we think of the objects, and asks how one discriminates between appearance and reality (since the senses can deceive...straw in water experiment).

Special metaphysics includes questions about the highest being (some say theology falls under this category, others disagree) and such questions as whether human beings have free will or if everything is already determined (asking especially about time, whether everything has already happened and we merely play it through).

That said, I believe some of the questions in metaphysics are important, though much is a waste. Metaphysics led to modern science (searching for ways to explain the universe, since many early philosophers tried to figure out what it was made of), and is largely why science degrees are Doctors of Philosophy (Ph.D.). However, as I said, too much of it turns into pointless speculation that is unfalsifiable, providing either a nontheory or an explanation so general it really explains nothing (to bring Hume back up, all it "proves" is that thinking and ideas exist, not that they are ultimate reality). So, this is just a small explanation of metaphysics. I don't know anything more about it really, since I'm only halfway done with my minor in Philosophy, but I'll try to find answers to questions.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-24 01:16am

Have there ever been any philosophical questions that have been answered? Seems you can't prove God any more wrong than Nietzsche.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 01:22am

I don't believe there's anything that has been conclusively answered. Some people are very stubborn, and deny what would seem to be evident philosophical truths as easily as they deny that science can describe the world. The most definitive areas of philosophy are logic and ethics, which do not fall under metaphysics. Metaphysics does form part of modern science (law of excluded middle, law of noncontradiction), but even those are being challenged by quantum physics (though there's a question as to whether quanta really exist or are just ways of describing something that's not completely real

). I'm probably not being very clear right now...philosophy at 1:30 am is not my strong point.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-24 01:27am

Ahh, quantum physics. Funny how what holds the universe together in an orderly fashion is unbelievably chaotic.

I like chaos.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 01:32am

You have no idea how much that's fucking over conventional philosophy. When A can equal Not A, and something can be both A, B, and everything in between at the same time, that's a recipe for some confused philosophers. I am so glad I'm mostly an ethicist rather than a metaphysician.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-24 01:37am

I've looked into metaphysics a little bit. I've never been real keen on the "super-ultra orderly universe" theory myself. Philosphyically, I beleive that everything has an oppisite, or it can't exist. So, looking on it that way, it kinda makes sense that choas reigns in the smallest area of the universe, and order controls the largest aspects of reality. And everything in between.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-24 01:49am

I am metaphysics at the highest degree (no official education, but that's how I like to think of myself).

For example, I think everything in existence is context-based and relative. I also do not believe in absolute truths.

There. Flame or bash away.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 01:51am

Shinova wrote:I am metaphysics at the highest degree (no official education, but that's how I like to think of myself).

For example, I think everything in existence is context-based and relative. I also do not believe in absolute truths.

There. Flame or bash away.

So it is not true that the lives of children must be preserved for a society to survive? (Just throwing out a random question here...no flame or bash, merely a question)

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-24 01:53am

The Dark wrote:
Shinova wrote:I am metaphysics at the highest degree (no official education, but that's how I like to think of myself).

For example, I think everything in existence is context-based and relative. I also do not believe in absolute truths.

There. Flame or bash away.
So it is not true that the lives of children must be preserved for a society to survive? (Just throwing out a random question here...no flame or bash, merely a question)

Children being relative as to whether you're talking about naturally born and raised children or clones.

Though I would've responded by saying cloning.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-24 01:57am

I believe that the only absolute truth is that there is none.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 11:17am

It doesn't sound like either "special" or "general" metaphysics has anything particularly useful to offer.

"Special" and "general" metaphysics? Those sound suspiciously like the two theories of relativity. Sounds like some philosopher wanted to grant his field some face-value credibility ...

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-24 11:36am

Durandal wrote:It doesn't sound like either "special" or "general" metaphysics has anything particularly useful to offer.

"Special" and "general" metaphysics? Those sound suspiciously like the two theories of relativity. Sounds like some philosopher wanted to grant his field some face-value credibility ...

As I recall, metaphysics was divided up before Einstein. I could be wrong though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-24 12:05pm

I would have less of a problem with metaphysics if it did not contain the word "physics". There is nothing physical about it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 03:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:I would have less of a problem with metaphysics if it did not contain the word "physics". There is nothing physical about it.

Agreed. One of my theology teachers in high school tried to grant credibility to Jesus' resurrection by saying that one of her students did a "metaphysical analysis" of it and, of course, endorsed the concept. We were freshman, and of course, we all thought that meant, "Wow, Jesus' resurrection is scientifically plausible."

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 04:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:I would have less of a problem with metaphysics if it did not contain the word "physics". There is nothing physical about it.

True, in today's world the name is anachronistic. As I explained, it's because the field evolved from Aristotle's writings in the book after his Physis (Physics), which came to be called the Metaphysis (After Physics), which merely meant it was the book after the physics. It was called that so librarians knew where to shelve the book

. In today's mostly non-Greek-literate society, though, it needs to be better explained and/or renamed.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-24 06:19pm

Shinova wrote:I am metaphysics at the highest degree (no official education, but that's how I like to think of myself).

For example, I think everything in existence is context-based and relative. I also do not believe in absolute truths.

There. Flame or bash away.

So, 2+2 might not equal four?

Although that actually might be true, with modern accounting practices, where 2+2 = 3.8 billion.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-24 10:35pm

Well, if this thread is going to regress into an argument about absolute truth, I'm outta here. I got my ass blasted enough about it before.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Metaphysics

Metaphysics

Re: Metaphysics

Re: Metaphysics