Metaphysics

[blp]

You'll have to excuse the basicness of this question. I'm a bit of a blockhead in philosophy. I've started reading a book on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and it begins with a chapter called 'The Problem of Metaphysics', but never provides a working definition of metaphysics. I realise it's a somewhat nebulous term, which is perhaps why it was a problem for Kant and lots of other philosophers, so I'm not asking for definitions - I've tried a few of those too and they're not much help. But I'd appreciate views from those who have them on what metaphysics is and how it functions, if it functions, or is thought to function, if it's thought to function.

[Regit]

If you are interested in understanding Metaphysics, I think it's better to start with the works of Aristotle.

[blp]

I'll certainly look that up, Regit. Thanks. Still interested in canvassing opinion here, mind.

[Regit]

:)
I haven't studied this particular concept in any good depth. But as I understand it, it's pretty much EVERYTHING (philosophically)! The concept of metaphysics, I think, was derived from all the works of Aristotle, explaining the world and the identity and existence of being. Thus, a lot of it is to do with actual physics, and even theology. It involves so many things that it's hard to have one definition. If I was to give a quick definition of metaphysics, I would say: "the theories of existence", or "the theories of being."

[blp]

I'm sort of getting the impression that it's more to do with thinking than being. Kant's work, nearing the end of the enlightenment, seems to have come largely out of a problem that arose at the beginning with reconciling Leibniz's metaphysics with Newton's physics.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Isn't the "theory of being" ontology? Or is that a branch of metaphysics?

[blp]

Ontology is about being. But if it's a theory or set of theories, since metaphysics seems (seems) to be to do with thought, I guess it might be part of metaphysics, even if actual being isn't.

[chmpman]

Regit mentioned that it has a lot to do with actual physics, but I thought it was a branch of thinking that Aristotle meant to be studied after physics. Getting into the real philosophical arguments and that good junk.

[Regit]

Regit mentioned that it has a lot to do with actual physics, but I thought it was a branch of thinking that Aristotle meant to be studied after physics. Getting into the real philosophical arguments and that good junk.
Yes. It had a philosophical view of physics. He tried to define existence of matter in the universe, mass, movements, etc (I really can't remember clearly) in order to explain being. As it was believed, I think, that the laws of nature is very similar to the logic of the human thought. Thus it involved many assumptions that are the same as the basic laws of physics, though it was not studied in the same manner that Physics was studied. I am sure, however, that it contributed a lot towards developing the science. Aristotle also studied the anatomy of plants I think; he was very much a scientist as well as a philosopher. As blp said, metaphysics is more like the theory side of being, explainning it with thinking rather than investigating it with practical experiments. I hope I made sense and was not too far off; perhaps I should try to study it again before contributing further.

[ktd222]

I thought Metaphysics was simply the study of what 'is'. Set aside our objectivity.

[ktd222]

You'll have to excuse the basicness of this question. I'm a bit of a blockhead in philosophy. I've started reading a book on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and it begins with a chapter called 'The Problem of Metaphysics', but never provides a working definition of metaphysics
Doesn't it seem like we could study Metaphysics free from our reasoning? But we can't seem to keep our reasoning out of anything we sense. I think this may be the problem Kant has with Metaphysics.

[Regit]

Isn't the "theory of being" ontology? Or is that a branch of metaphysics?
Yes to the second question. I think I said "theories of being". The works of Aristotle certainly covers ontology. Nontheless, because ontology only covers reality and 'real' things such as matter or numbers, it is only one branch of Metaphysics. Metaphysics covers also reasoning; and theology (the study of religions), etc.

[ktd222]

Doesn't it seem like we could study Metaphysics free from our reasoning? But we can't seem to keep our reasoning out of anything we sense. I think this may be the problem Kant has with Metaphysics.

Ya, I would like to rephrase to this statement:

Doesn't it seem like we could study Metaphysics free from our attatching meaning? But we can't seem to keep our attatching meaning out of anything we sense. I think this may be the problem Kant has with Metaphysics.

[Union Jack]

http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html
I believe that this is an excellent primer to philosophy, check out the two metaphysics sections.

[byquist]

Wikipedia gives interesting renditions of "metaphysics" and "meta."

Also googling "meta" and "definition," one description is "beyond, transcending, more comprehensive." For what it's worth, an ex-Colonel in the Army once mentioned he saw metaphysics as "above physics."

[blp]

"beyond, transcending, more comprehensive."

Just to complicate things a little, I believe Kant at one point distinguished between 'transcendent metaphysics', which he saw as insupportable and 'immanent metaphysics', which he believed in.

[blp]

Ya, I would like to rephrase to this statement:

Doesn't it seem like we could study Metaphysics free from our attatching meaning? But we can't seem to keep our attatching meaning out of anything we sense. I think this may be the problem Kant has with Metaphysics.

And maybe something like the problem Hume has with reasoning.

[blp]

http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html
I believe that this is an excellent primer to philosophy, check out the two metaphysics sections.


Good link, Union Jack. Thanks.

[squire nick]

It basically means "the physics of physics."

[blazeofglory]

You'll have to excuse the basicness of this question. I'm a bit of a blockhead in philosophy. I've started reading a book on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and it begins with a chapter called 'The Problem of Metaphysics', but never provides a working definition of metaphysics. I realise it's a somewhat nebulous term, which is perhaps why it was a problem for Kant and lots of other philosophers, so I'm not asking for definitions - I've tried a few of those too and they're not much help. But I'd appreciate views from those who have them on what metaphysics is and how it functions, if it functions, or is thought to function, if it's thought to function.

Reason is something that kills imagination and shades spirituality.

[jgweed]

The origin of metaphysics was the study of being as being, or reality as such, above and beyond beings and existents. Hence Aristotle's critique (and rejection) of prior philosophers in the first book of the Metaphysics because their accounts were not as all-inclusive as was his "four causes."
He begins his lecture notes with a simple statement, "All men by nature desire to know," and proceeds from the knowledge of individuals through the senses to a knowledge of being itself.

Modern philosophy being architectonic in structure, the different traditional areas of philosophy often interact or intrude on one another in a reflexive mode, so that the subject matter of metaphysics is far less independent than formerly.
Regards,
jgw