From the introduction I came to know that metaphysics deals with the most general abstract question about reality and being. So, although any child would know what “water” is, he might be totally ignorant about the “metaphysical” aspects of water, however he will never die out of thirst for not knowing this “metaphysical” aspect of water.

Similarly, knowing the nature of substances from physics or chemistry point of view has contributed a lot in the advancement of mankind, however not knowing their metaphysical nature never resulted in any harm to the mankind. In other words, if metaphysics was totally absent, what would we lack?

I think, Abdul´s question is an important one that implies much more than just dogmatic or religious aspects. Independent from our religious convictions, the question is if we need a complex metaphysical explanation of the world at all.

To be honest: Some of the articles I read in our metaphysics book seemed to me rather like playing on a logical play-ground than looking for serious answers that mankind essentially needs... 

But others opened a really fascinating dimension of our reality to me: For example wondering what it is that makes a thing to be that individual thing. Is it just a bundle of properties? Or is there anything else? And what is it then? Thinking about questions like these seems speculative on the first view but after a second deeper thinking they can provide our convictions - the scientific as well as the religious ones - with a deeper basis and change our view and opinion of the world. If a deeper thinking of the metaphysical basis of life leads us ie to a deeper appreciation of things, beings, the universe - then it´s worth the effort, isn´t it?

TWO

I suppose Metaphysics, like Philosophy in general, is substantially an intellectual exercise, interesting for its own sake to those who enjoy it. As Martina says, sometimes it does appear that it is hair splitting or engaged in linguistic gymnastics, but there is some good stuff as well. I agree with Sergio that it does have a bearing on the real world although the connection may seem tenuous at times. The same can be said of much of mathematics, I think, and other 'academic' subjects, don't you think?

I would be interested to know from Alistair if scientists are ever inclined to direct their research in a direction suggested by philosophy? It seems to me reading New Scientist etc that scientists have solved all of the philosophical problems already, but we know that is not true - there are always further questions to ask.

I need to think some more on what we would lack if Metaphysics was absent - but I think this would need to be that the whole of Philosophy was absent, because if you allow Philosophy then Metaphysics must be a part of it (and I would say a necessary part of it).

THREE

Speaking for the Angels

Hello Abdul and Others

An excellent question and one I am particularly interested in because as a teacher of history for most of my professional career I was often asked the same question ie what is the use of history, would it really matter if history disappeared. On some occasions people have said `isn`t there too much history around that people remember and doesn’t it get in the way of people living together` etc. People also claim that history is arcane and over specialised and just a game played by overpaid academics beyond the reach of ordinary people.

My answer to criticism of Metaphysics and Historical Scholarship is that the scholarship is reactive. It wasn`t made up by academics to annoy the rest of us it, it arose to meet a human need. People just do ask Metaphysical questions, just as they ask Ethical and Political questions and Historical questions and Scientific and Poetic and Aesthetic questions. We are just a very inquisitive self reflective species. We might wish this would all go away or that we would be better off if we could take a pill to make us less inquiring but then I don’t think we would have advanced from an unthinking life on the savannas or in caves.

If the questions are asked and just won`t go away eg What is the nature of time? What is causation?, Is there a God? How do you define a particular thing? Then you had better have specialists to help find the answer. If you want to build a bridge you don’t ask the local population on each bank to do it you get in a professional engineer. Of course people in professions get involved in very specialist discussions but that’s the nature of professions and there are usually lots of popularisers around to get the message out to the non specialists.

I often told my students that the study of history was as important as the study of science since it tried to answer fundamental questions and I think the same can be said of Metaphysics.

Sorry if this sounds a bit like a sermon, being an angel must have gotten to me.

Best wishes

FOUR

Hi Abdul
Really good question. Might I answer it in an absurdly optimistic way about the future?!
The main thing that struck me, reading for the first time about the problem of defining existence, was the question of 'God'. Although I have found Quine difficult to understand on first reading, to be honest (I'm about to go through it again), I was amazed to find a concept in black and white that I've been struggling with for a while.
Why should I have to be defined as an atheist? has been my long-asked question. Quine has phrased it so much more elegantly!
It seems that, in society, there are only two stances: you believe in God (religion) or you don't. Although, as Quine says, you can hardly deny that many do, it doesn't follow that you have to define yourself in such a way. By saying you're an atheist, you are forced to acknowledge the bald man in the doorway. (I don't mean that insultingly about religion at all - I'm merely referring to an example within the text.)
I know human nature will not change overnight, I'm wondering (abstractly and absurdly optimistically, perhaps) whether metaphysics could - at least in theory - have a 'practical' part to play in moving on the current dichotomy in outlook towards religion. That would be a practical move on behalf of metaphysics, wouldn't it?
Greater understanding removes fear and, therefore, aggression.
'Atheism' (for want of a better word) is sometimes seen as a threat to a religious way of life; a polarised stance against religion; a declaration of something anti religion.
It would be good if it could be seen as a completely separate view of life, and not a challenge at all.

MY RESPONSE

Thanks for your insights on my earlier query... I do believe that metaphysics is a very important subject and covers an area which is beyond physics. I think metaphysics starts where physics ends. I can see a close relation between religion and metaphysics as well centered around God. I think since God can not be proved with in a scientific laboratory, He must then be studied in the laboratory of metaphysics. However, the problem that still remains with metaphysics (and with philosophy in general) is to validate the answers that they force forward. How should I validate the correctness of a metaphysical answer, as we can validate the correctness of scientific answers (through experiments for example)...

FIVE

Hi Abdul,

Thanks for your interesting comments. "Metaphysics starts where physics ends" is a very succinct way of summarising one of the main conceptions of metaphysics over the last few hundred years. It was this conception that the logical positivists rejected, when they said that metaphysics was meaningless nonsense because it was not scientifically verifiable.

There are other conceptions of metaphysics where it can overlap with physics - for example, physics might be able to tell us about the nature of time, which is a metaphysical question. Don't forget that the names came from a librarian, not from Aristotle!

Your talk of the 'laboratory of metaphysics' is quite Kantian - he expressed the aim of raising metaphysics to the level of a science. His proposed way to do metaphysics scientifically was to base it on 'empirical facts' about the way the human mind perceives reality (that we perceive it in time and space, for example). If you doubt his 'empirical facts', as many have, then we need to start somewhere else...

Personally, I feel the best source of solid empirical fact is natural science, and so metaphysics is necessarily intertwined with physics, chemistry, etc.

Best wishes,

SIX

Thanks, Abdul, for a really good and provocative question - it's one I've never found a really good answer to.

I'm not sure its right to say that the child has no understanding of metaphysics at all - we intuitively understand quite a lot of the basic metaphysical framework of our world. For example, we naturally learn to walk and talk comparatively easily, as if it were 'hardwired' (baby antelope can run within an hour or two of birth). I think evolution will probably given us a grasp of some basic metaphysics, just in our understanding of how time, space, etc fit together.

If metaphysics were totally absent, we might lack the ability to reason laterally in many walks of life. Science could be reduced to a systematic checking of predictions and random trying out of new formulae if we had no background metaphysical picture to work with.

But to a large degree I agree with Roger - the main reason we do metaphysics, especially at the most abstract end, is because it is a fun intellectual exercise and because of the wonder it can engender. If we lacked metaphysics, life would be a little duller.

MY CONCLUSION

Thanks to All for their interesting postings on my initial query.

If we lacked metaphysics, life would be a little duller.

Probably human being is the only member in the animal kingdom who practice metaphysics (and philosophy in general). If we share with animals activities like eating, breathing, reproducing, playing etc, we distinguish from them in the intellectual exercise of our reason and get the pleasure of mind when pondering around "big questions"..looking above in the skies and pondering what might exist beyond..looking at death and asking what happens afterwards..Just thinking about such puzzles -probably- makes human being superior to other animals. Probably metaphysics limits itself in formulating such questions and throwing on the table some probable answers. Religion probably takes a bold step forward and gives answers to such questions, and also asks adherents to perform certain rituals assuming the correctness of such answers.

thanks
Abdul

---

Filter +3 Excellent+2 Insightful+1 Useful0 NeutralSee All-1 Off Topic-2 Flame-3 SPAMOldest FirstNewest First50 posts25 posts15 posts5 posts 

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Name:
Email:
Comment-Tracking E-mail Alerts
Mode		New entry [Start a new Entry]
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:

Powered by OpenComment 3.0.21