Metaphysics

Metaphysics is a difficult branch of Philosophy, but it is rather easy to define: It is the study of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about those beliefs. “Metaphysical” concepts include Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. These concepts are fundamental, metaphysical, because all of our other concepts and beliefs rest upon them. All of our notions of anything that matters are based upon the definitions of these concepts, even if we have not defined them ourselves. This is why Metaphysics matters, even today. What you think is real and true depends entirely upon the Metaphysics you have either inherited or developed yourself. There is nothing more fundamental.

Metaphysical Origins

Of course, it would be easy to think that Metaphysics is just some ancient curiosity which doesn't apply to us today. That would be wrong. It would also be wrong to think Metaphysics has somehow changed in fundamental scope since then. The Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote a number of books, and many were together called the Physics. In an early edition, the works of Aristotle were organized in such a way that there was another set of books placed right after the Physics. These “after” books seemed to concern a basic, fundamental area of philosophical inquiry, and at the time they did not have a name. So early Aristotle scholars called those books ta meta ta physika, which means “the (books that come) after the (books about) physics”. This origin of the word is not so very different from our usage today, because Metaphysics is concerned with concepts like Being and Time which are critical to an understanding of Physics, the Universe, and our place within it all. While this was a first use of the term “Metaphysics” so many centuries ago, philosophers before Aristotle were certainly doing Metaphysics.

Over the centuries, problems not originally considered “metaphysical” were added to Metaphysics, but more noticeably, several problems, for centuries considered metaphysical, have now been “spun off” into their own sub-disciplines within Philosophy. So, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Perception, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Science, and others take up fundamental questions which are nevertheless a direct part of Metaphysics. During the Medieval Philosophy period and up until Modern times this was understood, but today we unnaturally have everything split up into different “departments”, which is unfortunate. What might be called the core metaphysical problems, however, have always been considered a part of Metaphysics - and have never been considered not metaphysical (to speak like Aristotle). They are listed above: Problems like Being, Existence, and Time, among others.

Traditions and New Findings

Traditionally, Metaphysics is divided into the areas of Ontology, Theology, and Science (which was then called “Universal Science”), and anyone working in these fields today is by definition “doing Metaphysics”. Astronomy is a particularly obvious example of a whole, rich field of study which was spun off from traditional Metaphysics for specialization, while Theology was more rightfully spun off because it defaults to Religion itself. Additionally, there is a whole philosophical Lexicon, a collection of terms we still use today which were developed long ago, and that Lexicon dominates Western Philosophy. Consider the basic branches of Metaphysics:

• Ontology defines “Being” and “Existence”
• Teleology studies the Purpose of Being and Existence
• Universal Science collects Laws underlying Being and Existence
• Theology considers the existence of Supreme Being(s)

It is easy to see the Ancient framework of Metaphysics is one which continues to this day:

• Ontology is served by Epistemology and Physics
• Teleology is served by the Life Sciences and Physics
• Universal Science is still Science, particularly Sub-Atomic Physics
• Theology is served by Religion, Faith, Spirituality

So, Ontology and Universal Science have seen the most transformation, but again, it is a transformation of specialization and individuation. Many of the traditional topics of Ontology are very much alive in our studies today within Epistemology (aka. “Theory of Knowledge”), as well as the Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Perception, but these are really a part of Epistemology in the first place, which in turn is a part of Metaphysics, which is a branch of Philosophy. Universal Science has become specialized by the major transformations in Particle and Sub-Atomic Physics, as well as the Philosophy of Science, and of course by incredible diversification and individuation of scientific disciplines, sub-disciplines, and sub-sub-disciplines. Again, these are simply facets of Science in general, which is “Universal Science'', which is a part of Metaphysics, which belongs to Philosophy.

With Teleology, we find a dual-edged sword, in that teleological topics have been taken up by much of Science in general through the detailed study of biological structures and processes, and the physical nature of “reality”, but at the same time, the imposition of ancient “Purpose” onto things has become a problem in itself. The development of Intelligent Design and its backlash is a key example. Likewise, Theology has become a presumption of Supreme Beings supporting the World's religions and faiths. Put simply, it is not really possible for a Theologian to be an Atheist. So, Theology has been abandoned in Modern Philosophy.

The fact still remains that Metaphysics, or “First Philosophy”, as René Descartes put it, is still to this day a study of fundamental concepts which almost literally are what we call Science, Knowledge, Logic, even Art and Industry. Metaphysics is about all things in general. If fewer philosophers think of themselves as “doing Metaphysics” these days, it is mainly because answers to its fundamental ideas - ideas like the nature of Matter, Being, Space, Causality, Substance, Species, and Elements - have already been presumed or are uncontroversial in our Modern culture - or so we often think.

The nature of Matter is one of many counter-examples, and it is telling that some newer, decidedly fanciful and popularized theories about Matter (such as “String Theory” or “Dark Energy”), do not benefit from the foundation laid down in Metaphysics (see Against Super Strings). New theories of Metaphysics are not only possible, but necessary, and they will necessarily grapple with the findings of new discoveries and promising theories, such as Loop Quantum Gravity, Spin Networks, and even Quantum Mechanics itself.

A good example of a change to Metaphysics would be the classic Law of Non-Contradiction: “A thing cannot both be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect.” In other words, a particular apple cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, or it cannot be all red and all green at the same time. Principles like this may need to be rethought, to accommodate the seemingly paradoxical findings at the Quantum level, and although few Philosophers in our day would admit to it (because the term “Metaphysics” may seem quaint to them), they are doing exactly that.

A Basic Example

Let us back up and say it is sometimes understandably difficult to be clear on what the issues even are in Metaphysics. Again, it is easy to define, but difficult to ponder. So, 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 (if you prefer green apples, then imagine a green one - while Honeycrisp is my fav). We can ask many metaphysical questions about this apple, without even getting into the current crises brought on by Quantum Science.

The apple is an excellent example of an observable Object. We can pick it up, toss it up and catch it, roll it across the table, and of course, eat it. Apples occupy Space and Time and have a variety of fundamental Properties, such as Mass, Composition, Colour (Wavelengths), and so on. Is this physical object just a bundle of its properties? Or, is it a Substance which has those properties? Congratulations, you have just done a bit of Metaphysics, and you've inquired as to how the Problem of Substance and Objecthood applies to the observable object before you, so welcome to Epistemology as well.

We can go further. We said the apple has properties, like being red or green, being crisp, being juicy. How are “properties” different from “objects”? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness or greenness. But apples and their colours are different things, or entities, entirely, right? One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness itself, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red things. So how can we best think about what properties are? We've just considered the classic “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 do 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, wouldn't it? But, if someone ate it, the apple would not just have changed, it would no longer exist. That is, its Existence would be transformed into some other Existence, such as enzymes and chemicals within one's body. So there already are some pretty deep metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of Identity and Change which play right into our larger world-view on all things.

The 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 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 no - they say that without physical objects, Space would not exist, because Space is merely the framework in which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. Of course, there are many other metaphysical questions to ask about Space and Time (see Against Time).

Continuing on, we know the apple is a “Thing”, don't we? If someone else is in the room, and that someone has a Mind, we are surely going to admit that their mind, or really their Brain, is a different “Thing” from the apple. Still, Mind is Immaterial, but the apple is a Material Object, or so we think. Moreover, it sounds a little strange to say that person's Mind is located in any particular place, so maybe we could say it is somewhere in the room, but the apple is definitely located in a particular place, namely on the middle of the table. It seems clear that minds are fundamentally different from physical bodies, or are they? But if so, how can something mental, like a decision to eat, cause a physical event to occur, like biting into the apple? How are the mind and body causally interconnected if the two are totally different sorts of things? We've just reflected on the “Mind-Body Problem”, something nowadays discussed in the Philosophy of Mind.

We might think an exercise like this, while instructional, is seldom used in our everyday lives, but again, that would be wrong. Anytime we try to figure out what a pet is thinking, or what that driver is going to do in front of us, or what we're going to get at the grocery store, or how we feel about losing a loved one, or any number of daily examples - guess what? We're doing Metaphysics.

Metaphysical Connections

• Aesthetics
• Epistemology
• Logic
• Ontology
• Teleology
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science

Scholarship by M.R.M. Parrott

Dynamism: Life: Volume II: Biological Chemistry and Epistemology Philosophy and Science Treatise ©2001, 2010-2011 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Jun 2011 Published by rimric press 0-9746106-5-8 | 978-0-9746106-5-8 216 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Afterword, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

Dynamism: Force: Volume I: Quantum Physics and Ontology Philosophy and Science Treatise ©2001-2004 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: Feb 05/Jun 11 Published by rimric press 0-9746106-1-5 | 978-0-9746106-1-0 204 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Both Prefaces, Afterword, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)

Synthetic A Priori: Philosophical Interviews Interviews, Discussion ©1998-1999 M.R.M. Parrott First Published: 99,00,02,08,11 Published by rimric press 0-9662635-6-1 | 978-0-9662635-6-5 232 Pages, Paperback & eBook, 2025 2025 Edition Extras: Both Prefaces, Notes on the Text and Cover Art Amazon Paperback (author) Barnes & Noble Paperback (author) Waterstones Paperback (author)