Metaphysics

[MadArchitect]

I'm co-opting this quote from the current Freethought Book Poll in order to raise the subject of metaphysics.

I am of the opinion that arguing about metaphysics is pointless because in the end, many arguments have no practical application regardless of which "side" or argument is "right."

It seems to me that we talk a great deal in metaphysical terms without really realizing it. The key is understanding the basic idea behind the notion. Metaphysics is basically the process of taking what we know about the physical world, and deducing from that what we can't know directly. For example, when Newton started talking about physical Law, he was basically talking in metaphysical terms. We can't apprehend law directly, but it was Newton's contention that we could deduce its existence and form based on what we saw in nature.

Hopefully, that illuminates what metaphysics is. Now let's talk about why it matters.

The short answer is that the way we interact with the physical world is to some degree conditioned by what we think props it up. In another thread we're talking about the nature of moral good, and whether or not the word refers to anything worth taking seriously. And that's a metaphysical concern. If you think that there is no good, that there's no criteria by which to judge human behavior, then you'll probably be inclined to behave different from some other person who holds that there is. Alternately, if you believe, with Newton, that the world behaves according to an underlying set of Laws, then you may be inclined to devote your life to figuring out those Laws, particularly if you think knowing them will help you, say, live longer, or make obscene amounts of money.

Or, more subtly, if you believe in a particular formulation of natural Law, it may inform your choice of, say, political systems. Metaphysics play a part in both Marxist and Capitalist philosophies; to dispute the metaphysics at play in either is to call the very foundations of those political-economic systems into question.

Oftentimes, metaphysical argument seems pointless because the arguments had gone on so long that we've lost sight of why the dispute arose in the first place. A lot of what passes for modern metaphysics actually has its roots in early Greek philosophy, particularly in Plato, and without an at least cursory inquiry into why the questions were asked in the first place, it can be difficult to see how they relate to modern, practical concerns.

[George Ricker]

Those who are interested might want to take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry for "Metaphysics" at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

It opens this way:

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the "science" that studied "being as such" or "the first causes of things" or "things that do not change." It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics

[Dissident Heart]

Metaphysics, it seems to me, is what we use to legitimize both our descriptions of reality, and our prescriptions for how we should live. Thus, it is our foundational "This Is" as well as our fundamental "Thou Shalt". Metaphysics serves as the axiomatic givens and the non-negotiable boundary markers for what we define and support as reality. It is the bottom line to all our bottom lines. It is the final answer we give when asked by the precocious interrogator: Why? Because of so an so. Why? Because of so and so. Why?......well, Metaphysics is the moment when we say "Because I say so! That's why."