Metaphysical Thought Notes

The recent babblings of Neil deGrasse Tyson have made one thing clear: when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics, there is exactly one choice: do metaphysics and philosophy. That, however, opens up to exactly two choices: one can either do philosophy and metaphysics well, or poorly, and if you do it poorly…well, philosophy always buries its undertakers, but not before embarrassing them first.

Well, regardless of whether one does metaphysics well or poorly, what’s the goal of it all? Here’s where things start to get confusing, because at this point, most people assign metaphysics a role as quasi-empirical science, trying to answer certain questions (it’s usually the ‘big questions’) and develop theories and conclusions. Now, being the good Wittgensteinian that I am, I think that trying to develop philosophical theories is a profound kind of confusion known as the conceptual confusion.

By trying to develop philosophical theories that can be defended, philosophy commits the error of trying to play the metaphysical game by the rules of the natural sciences – conclusions must be found, and either falsified or not. This is the conceptual confusion: to impose the rules of the game of natural science onto an entirely different game. No doubt some good can and has come of it – if one imposed the rules of Risk onto Monopoly, one could probably, given enough time, figure out a way to play and so to make some kind of ‘progress’ in the game, or at least enjoy the game.

Now, this doesn’t take away from the deep inter-connectedness of science and metaphysics. The two exist together in an intimate tie – without a grammar of metaphysics, there is no grasp on reality, and without science, there is nothing to form a grammar about. But as metaphysics has as its subject matter the most general of subjects, its methods must also be the most general – since metaphysics aims at grasping the most universal, its method must transcend the particular, and since conclusions of any significance have to be formulated by way of particulars, its must also transcend the formulation of specific metaphysical theories.

I admit that I don’t follow my own rules here all of the time – I haven’t quite worked out the mechanics of what I’m saying above.

7 thoughts on “Metaphysical Thought Notes

  1. guymax May 19, 2014 / 6:40 am

    Ahem. Yes. You have not quite worked out the mechanics. I can demonstrate that your view is incorrect and have done so. I do see your point but find it muddled. There is nothing to prevent us from having a sound metaphysical theory. I have such a theory, and it’s a popular one, so must strongly object to your view. But I’ve said it all elsewhere and won’t clog up your comments section. Just wanted to register an objection. I do not recognise your characterisation of metaphysics. .

    Like

  2. whitefrozen May 22, 2014 / 12:38 pm

    I’ll concede I pushed my point too far – in my defense, thinking about the inanities of Tyson tends to rob me of my better judgement. There are, obviously enough, sound metaphysical conclusions – I hold to several of them.

    Like

  3. guymax May 22, 2014 / 2:15 pm

    Lol. Me too. I’ve been led into writing a couple of far too outspoken posts thanks to Tyson’s nonsense.

    Like

    • whitefrozen May 22, 2014 / 2:22 pm

      I will stand by the main thrust of my post, however (rhetoric aside) – that the majority of metaphysical theories/theory-seeking is conceptually confused – conceding again that perhaps I over played my point. Incidentally, I was just reading some of your blog posts – I will refrain from commenting until I feel like I have a solid handle on what you’re saying, however. Whereof one cannot speak, and all that.

      Like

  4. guymax May 22, 2014 / 2:59 pm

    Thanks for reading some of my stuff. You’ll see that I agree that metaphysics is in a hopeless muddle in our universities. I can definitely agree with you about that. But I also argue that it need not be in a muddle. Iow, the problem would not be metaphysics but metaphysicians. So I can sympathise with your view, but don’t share it. Something here about bad workmen and tools…

    Like

    • whitefrozen May 22, 2014 / 10:26 pm

      I don’t disagree that the big problem is metaphysicians. I appreciate the sympathy but not sharing of my viewpoint. If more people were able to sympathize but still disagree, the world would be a better place.

      Like

      • guymax May 23, 2014 / 6:03 am

        Very true.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s