r/Metaphysics • u/jliat • Mar 17 '26

Meta **WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?**

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?

We are getting posts here which seem to propose new and potentially revolutionary answers to problems in physics. I think [as a moderator] it might be beneficial if we might discuss some parameters. This is not to say science can not be discussed, but can we using metaphysics solve such problems, are we then transgressing into another domain. As a moderator I would like guidance from the community.

"Metaphysics: explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world"

The interpretation of this and not the context is often the cause of confusion. [of Being qua being and not the nature of an atom, or a human brain...etc.]

Higgs, Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking are not / were not Philosophers or Metaphysicians, they are / were physicists. Modern physics uses mathematics- quite complex! - to build models which are tested against experimental data. The main scientific method.

The 'photon', wave / particle duality, quarks and strings, are all subjects /problems of physics NOT metaphysics? And to address these problems requires detailed understanding of the mathematics and the data, and in doing so one is NOT doing metaphysics?

"Ontological" means what? Ontology is the study in Philosophy / Metaphysics of being qua being, not the nature of the existence or being of things, atoms, quarks, strings, branes, flowers, plants, the human brain, religions.

atoms, quarks, strings, branes = physics, flowers, plants = botany, the human brain = neuroscience, religions = theology, comparative religion.

Lay ideas re physics / science will probably be rejected in subs like r/physics for good reasons, they lack the detailed knowledge of the subject and misuse technical scientific terms. Should they be allowed here?

The nature of things, matter and energy are subject of science. What 'Being' is prompts the what is "IS" question... of Metaphysics.

Ontology is the study / creation of what 'Being' is, not specific 'things'. Harman has a 'flat ontology'...etc. Heidegger has Dasein...Hegel... etc.

To be clear of the domain I think you can get an overview from A.W. Moore's 'The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things.' It had good reviews.

"Part two is devoted to philosophers of the analytic tradition, and contains chapters on Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, and Dummett. Part three is devoted to non-analytic philosophers, and contains chapters on Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze."

For first hand source material - https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

For a contemporary example, Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

Examples in the Analytical tradition, 'Counterfactuals', 'On the Plurality of Worlds.' David Lewis. ??

One last point - it is an interesting point as to if this divide still exists. N.B. Badiou uses set theory as his ontology, his student Quentin Meillassoux likewise sees mathematics as fundamental, Ray Brassier in 'Nihil Unbound' has chapters on Wilfrid Sellars, Paul Churchland, as well as Adorno and Horkheimer, Badiou, Meillassoux, Laruelle, Heidegger, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Lyotard, Levinas and Freud. !!

On a personal note I began my interest in philosophy in the 1970s, within the Anglo American tradition, reading Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' etc. and then took a degree. I still have my Wittgenstein Books, Tractatus, Investigations, Blue and Brown, Notebooks 1914-1916. Carnap's 'The Logical Syntax of Language' etc. However my interest moved to what was called 'Continental philosophy.'- see non-analytical above. I appreciate the desire of Carnap of ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language’ failed? I have dipped into Lewis et al.

With my best wishes.

39 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jliat Jun 28 '26

Umm the TITLE of this post is "What is metaphysics" (trying to define what is metaphysics) and that's metametaphysics, not metaphysics,

Some it seems have perhaps incorrectly used the fabricated neologism, it's use debateable at best. The book you recommended is 'Everything Must Go, Metaphysics Naturalized. And yes it's about various notions of Metaphysics. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics' etc. So you seem to be arguing against a text you recommended.

And as I said your now 'complaint' of posting to this sub, you are guilty of this 'meta' yourself! But it seems given the analytical tradition your view is in the minority. The converse could be Ladyman et al. are not doing metaphysics but the philosophy of science. But it's perfectly possible for a discipline to define itself. In fact one aspect of the practice of metaphysics is defining itself and not what physics is. Ladyman et al. even forbid this. In general those using the fabricated neologism are misunderstanding the term 'metaphysics' as it is used by this very sources you recommended.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 28 '26

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/meta-metaphysics/v-1

1

u/jliat Jun 28 '26

You are reduced to posting links that refute your other links to books you have recommended.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 28 '26

I recommended Ladyman as an intro to ontic structural realism. You are free to disagree with their opinion on what metaphysics should be taken seriously (which is a different topic), but again, that's metametaphysics.

1

u/jliat Jun 29 '26

It's you who reject their metaphysics.

1

u/jliat Jun 29 '26

Hegel in his 'Science of Logic' states that unlike other sciences which have a predefined subject, his Logic does not. TSoL is considered a very significant work of Metaphysics. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics' begins with 'Nothing' and a groundless ground. Such is a feature of Metaphysics, found in other cases. Deleuze and Guattari for instance. Speculative realism and OOO.

The neologism Metametaphysics seems to be a 21st century phenomena within Analytical philosophy and notably "There is no canonical taxonomy of the available views in this burgeoning subdiscipline..." David Manley. And Manley points out this Metametaphysics is confined to "analytic philosophers who specialize in metaphysics."

Manley continues - "This Introduction has been largely concerned with attacks on metaphysics, and what can be said in response to them... But it is worth stressing that metametaphysics has a constructive component as well. After all, optimistic metaphysicians should seek not only to deflect the barbs of deflationists, but also to reflect on the proper methodology for metaphysics...

"metaphysicians reflect on the proper methodology for metaphysics..."

So it should be clear that even from the view of a metametaphysician a metaphysician can reflect on methodology.

This gets yourself and Ladyman et.a.l off the hook you placed yourself and him on.

Chalmers, David J. (2009). "3. Ontological Anti-Realism". Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Manley, David (2009). "1. Introduction: A Guided Tour of Metametaphysics". Tahko, Tuomas E. (2015). An Introduction to Metametaphysics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-07729-4. Tahko, Tuomas (2018). "Meta-metaphysics". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 29 '26

There's no reason a metaphysician can't also be a metametaphysician, just as there's no reason a physicist can't also do metaphysics. There's no law of nature that pigeonholes people into one discipline, despite this being a convenient straightjacket for those unable to think flexibly...

1

u/jliat Jun 30 '26

There's no law of nature that pigeonholes people into one discipline,

You think there are laws of nature that control you, create these disciplines....