Perhaps at an earlier age, the average man (or woman) did not have the necessary leisure to pursue philosophy, let alone metaphysics, nor did he had the means to build himself a library of philosophers with whom to consult and meditate.

But with the diffusion of knowledge, books, and the increase in spare time, even when the average person is pressed about by life, the situation today seems different. If the desire be there, then anyone with simple time-management skills may devote time to the serious study of philosophy. Far more than at any time, people today have the opportunity to pursue metaphysics to a greater extent than earlier.

On the other hand, Maimonides also seems to make an important observation, namely that a quick and casual knowledge often without the real desire to actually spend a prolonged period of study of philosophy (Sophie's Choice, for example, and little more) cannot lead to the proper study of metaphysics, or indeed of any other complicated subject about which one feels obligated in the modern age to have an opinion about.

One earns the position of "privileged person" in philosophy much as one does in any intellectual endeavor in modern life:desire, dedication, and hard work.

Michel,
What are your views on the Monastic Disciplines in regards to this subject?

I'm asking about metaphysical traditions that have alternate class distinctions. Monastic traditions often have self imposed poverty, but command respect due to their association with preist, monk, wise man, shamanistic 'class'. Distinctions of those who have traditionally spent the time to study metaphysics that cannot be placed into the "rich" category.

my scorn is directed towards the social conditions that prohibit commen people from its study

Some supported by the state some supported themselves,

either way most of them chose the life, sacrificed material good for another good

On an institutional plane the material femenist argument has merit as it is being adapted to fiscal class, but what of agency in individuals?

I have the opposite take on it.

The less privileged you are, the more your attention is devoted to things that are truly important. Family, health, food, making ends meet, love, community, etc, and the philosophy that's important is that which guides one in how to live (i.e. ethics).

Metaphysics is a form of idleness -- it's intentional divestment from the world in front of you. And most people can't afford to be idle.

The less privileged you are, the less chance you have at eating properly, making ends meet and effectively contributing to your community. For example, we can see that a proper diet would be increasingly difficult because of a lack of resources to purchase or trade for a proper diet. We can also say that insufficient resources would also impact the medicine you can buy and the doctors you can afford. You seem to glance over this blatantly obvious fact.

Uh no. You have made the exact point I'm making as well. This is why an occupation of idleness, like pontificating about dualism or about infinite causality, is of little interest to someone who is disadvantaged.

I do not agree with Maimonides (whom I admire greatly) that metaphysics should be a privileged art. On the other hand, that quote should not be taken out of the context of Guide for the Perplexed. Maimonides was a theologian. Maimonides was the Jewish Aristotelian, just as Aquinas was for Christianity and Avicenna was for Islam

The Guide was a document largely about how rationality will lead you to God. In other words, metaphysics was a critical endeavor because it was the substructure of religion.

But you know, the guy died 800 years ago and the intellectual esteem of metaphysics isn't quite the same these days. And metaphysics falls pretty low on the priority list of people who live hard lives.

The general person just does not have enough time to tackle these issues because he is burdened with longer work hours, debt, and whatever else that keeps this consumer culture in operation. ***** They are systematically burdened, and such burdened is intended because it keeps certain classes in power and other classes out of power. It's not at all a coincidence that in the West, white men dominate politics, religion and philosophy.

Yes, you are taking his quote out of context. You're looking at the quote without asking yourself what metaphysics means in the context of his society vs ours, and more importantly what it means within the document in which it appears.

What my quotes add to the discussion is an idea of what Maimonides actually meant in his own context. It makes no sense to agree or disagree with him if you haven't even explored what he meant.

I examined your posts and I don't see where the relevance is. Even if i grant your point, it does not have any bearing on my argument. Or at least I don't see any relevance.

It really do not matter what he meant by metaphysics. What matters is that, whatever it is, it is privileged knowledge.

It may be that the duties of life make such paths difficult, but it does not take a Samuel Smiles to point out that they do not make it impossible, if the desire is there. It is possible for a woman to be born in the projects and end up sitting in the Supreme Court; I would think that one were to poll the Members of this community, one would find many who work, raise a family, keep up the yard, and do charity work.

And to suggest that this is intended, presumably by the "power classes" or "white men," seems---without any sort of warrant or explanation about how a select group of people can intend anything---unreasonable, especially in today's world.

Perhaps this is the problem with metaphysics -- its inability to connect with planet earth. You are taking the subject of metaphysics as mentioned in a statement written nearly a millenium ago, ignoring the fact that the context was different, and even when I spell it out plainly you fail to appreciate its relevance.

Of course it matters what he meant. If someone makes the statement "Metaphysics is privileged knowledge", the meaning of that statement is contingent upon what the speaker means by metaphysics, what they mean by privileged, what they mean by knowledge, and even what they mean by is.

Even if the context is different, you need to explain why it is relevantly different. I don't see where you have done this...at all.

You keep saying how you've read what I've written, but not with any comprehension.

I've offered useful arguments as to why metaphysics would be understood differently by Maimonides than by you, so your metaphysics and his metaphysics are likely something different.

I've studied Maimonides enough to somewhat illuminate why his 11th century perspective might lend different meaning to that sentence.