What is Metaphysics and quotes on what it is?

@jeeprs,

Metaphysics: The (Basic or Fundamental or General or Ultimate) Definition

Metaphysics is

(ontology or philosophy in general or theoretical philosophy);

or

the branch of philosophy which

attempts to clarify
examines
investigates
is an attempt to describe (in a sufficiently general way)
is concerned with explaining
is the (philosophical) study of
is the (ultimate) science of
studies

any of the most fundamental (beliefs or concepts) about
the (conceptions or relations) which are necessarily implied as true of
the (basic or fundamental or ultimate) nature of
the (most general and fundamental) principles (of or underlying)
the notions by which people understand
the ultimate (structure or constitution) of
what constitutes

(every kind of or real as distinguished from phenomenal) being (with reference to its (abstract or universal) conditions, as distinguished from (determined or concrete) being)
existence
knowing
all knowledge
first principles
(all of or ultimate) reality, (visible or invisible or natural or supernatural), i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real
things
the universe
the world;

including (concepts such as or questions about)

attribute
causality
causation
change
event
fact
identity
matter
mind
object
possibility
property
universal
relation
space
substance
time
value
and many others which are presupposed in the special sciences but do not belong to any one of them;

what they are, why they are, and how are we can understand them. Laughing

@Alan McDougall,

I think Kant was wrong. It would not be simply that we can't know the thing-in-itself, but that there's no such thing. When he concludes that all phenomena depend on a phenomena which is not an instance of any category he more or less concedes this.

Quote:

To know the thing in itself demands not only an absolute grasp of what the thing is in its most fundamental essence, but how that thing exists in relation to everything else that affects its existence. Such understanding implies an omniscience that transcends finite human capabilities

I think this is too pessimistic. I think we are are all able to grasp the essential nature of phenomena and their relationship, and this is because we are one of them. 'Know Thyself' is the Oracle's timeless advice, and then you know everyone else. As the Upanishads put it, the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all. This is a first person report.

(Won't be around for a few days to reply again.)

@Whoever,

Quotes on Metaphysics by Ortega y Gasset

[From: Some Lessons in Metaphysics, by Jos? Ortega y Gasset. Translated by Mildred Adams. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1969.]

[M]etaphysics is not metaphysics except for those who need it. (p. 15)

Metaphysics is something that man does, and that doing consists of his seeking a basic orientation in his situation. (p. 28)

[M]etaphysics is something that man makes. (p. 53)

[M]etaphysical activity is an inevitable ingredient of human life; even more, [. . .] it is what man is always doing, and all his other occupations are decantings precipitated from it. (pp. 120-1)

Metaphysics is not a science; it is a construction of the world, and this making a world out of what surrounds you is human life. (p. 121)

Man makes his world in order to install himself in it, to save himself in it; man is metaphysical. (p. 122)

Metaphysics is a thing that is inevitable. (p. 122)

[T]he metaphysician, having to renounce every opinion which he himself does not fabricate, being unable to accept from others any opinion as good and firm, must make it all himself, or, what is the same thing, he has to remain alone. Metaphysics is solitude. (p. 123)

Others can put us on the road, but we truly make metaphysics; that is, when we fabricate our own basic convictions, we must build each one by itself and for itself, in fundamental solitude. (p. 123)

@Alan McDougall,

I think metaphysics is a place where science and the supernatural can converge to discuss mysteries yet unresolved by both.

A lot of yesterdays magic is today's science . If you could hypothetically take a cell phone back in time with you to the dark ages, you would be burned as a wizard or witch.

Classical scientists would like to burn those of us that dare to go the metaphysical road, unless it can be explained by empirical scientific method it is false

Isaac Newton would have said Albert Einstein was missing a few grey marbles by stating that time is relative and not universal, like any good physicist knew it must be

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;102565 wrote:

I think metaphysics is a place where science and the supernatural can converge to discuss mysteries yet unresolved by both.

A lot of yesterdays magic is today's science . If you could hypothetically take a cell phone back in time with you to the dark ages, you would be burned as a wizard or witch.

Classical scientists would like to burn those of us that dare to go the metaphysical road, unless it can be explained by empirical scientific method it is false

Isaac Newton would have said Albert Einstein was missing a few grey marbles by stating that time is relative and not universal, like any good physicist knew it must be

"It's better to metaphysic than to burn!":devilish:
"I never metaphysic I didn't like!" Laughing

@Alan McDougall,

Metaphysics is all the good stuff.

@Whoever,

Whoever;102431 wrote:

I think Kant was wrong. It would not be simply that we can't know the thing-in-itself, but that there's no such thing. When he concludes that all phenomena depend on a phenomena which is not an instance of any category he more or less concedes this.

I think this is too pessimistic. I think we are are all able to grasp the essential nature of phenomena and their relationship, and this is because we are one of them. 'Know Thyself' is the Oracle's timeless advice, and then you know everyone else. As the Upanishads put it, the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all. This is a first person report.

(Won't be around for a few days to reply again.)

I think you are right. I recently saw the absurdity of "things-n-themselves." Hegel is shrewder. So is Wittgenstein. We cannot talk of what it is that we cannot talk of. Objectivity is grounded by social-practice, not the fascinating but paradoxical production of Kant.

@Alan McDougall,

I'd agree about Hegel but find Wittgenstein hopelessly muddled. He is often accused of mysticism but never understood it, or never demonstrated that he did.

Btw, by my earlier comment about the voidness of phenomena being a first person report I didn't mean to suggest it was my report. I haven't travelled so far worst luck.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 11:21 AM ----------

But back to the topic. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics?' is worth a read. It was his inaugural lecture at the U. of Freiberg. In it he makes an important distinction between traditional metaphysics and mysticism, accusing metaphysics of dealing only with beings and never with Being. This, he says, is 'no mere mistake,' by which I presume he means that Being is a can of worms that metaphysicians are reluctant to open.

@Whoever,

Whoever;136842 wrote:

I'd agree about Hegel but find Wittgenstein hopelessly muddled. He is often accused of mysticism but never understood it, or never demonstrated that he did.

I used to think that about Witt, but the TLP makes sense to me now. Wittgenstein was an utterly negative mystic. To view the world as a limited whole, it is that which is the mystical. That it is at all....

He shows that all of our ideas are accident, not essence. No idea is God, nor any concept.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 04:44 PM ----------

Whoever;136842 wrote:

But back to the topic. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics?' is worth a read. It was his inaugural lecture at the U. of Freiberg. In it he makes an important distinction between traditional metaphysics and mysticism, accusing metaphysics of dealing only with beings and never with Being. This, he says, is 'no mere mistake,' by which I presume he means that Being is a can of worms that metaphysicians are reluctant to open.

Yes, Heidegger is right on this point. But Hegel & Witt are on his page. They went down to the base, to Being itself. The TLP echoes the core of Hegel's logic. Tautology and contradiction. Being and nothingness. Heidegger says as much when he writes "Being" under erasure.

@Alan McDougall,

Just to lend some clarity to this discussion, When Heidegger accuses metaphysics of dealing with being he accuses them of dealing with a thing called being. In his later writings he changes "being" to be-ing where appropriate. In essence he is saying that while you are making the distinction between "being" and "be-ing" you are still be-ing and there is nothing you can do about it. He basically accuses us of spending way too much time on "being" because it gives us some "thing" to hold on to. "Be-ing" gives you nothing to hold on to, nothing to prove, and most of all nothing to stamp with your own brand. There are such a small amount of people asking the question about "be-ing" that you might meet 10 million people before you "bump" into one.
Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;136985 wrote:

Just to lend some clarity to this discussion, When Heidegger accuses metaphysics of dealing with being he accuses them of dealing with a thing called being. In his later writings he changes "being" to be-ing where appropriate. In essence he is saying that while you are making the distinction between "being" and "be-ing" you are still be-ing and there is nothing you can do about it. He basically accuses us of spending way too much time on "being" because it gives us some "thing" to hold on to. "Be-ing" gives you nothing to hold on to, nothing to prove, and most of all nothing to stamp with your own brand. There are such a small amount of people asking the question about "be-ing" that you might meet 10 million people before you "bump" into one.
Dasein

I think a philosopher must get behind Being. For whatever reason, the Germans are great at this. What do you make of this Hegel quote?

Quote:

... there is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain both immediacy and mediation, so that these two determinations reveal themselves to be unseparated and inseparable and the opposition between them to be a nullity.

To examine something as abstract as Being is to examine the structure of thinking....which is true ontology, as Being is always mediated...even if only by this most abstract concept.

@Reconstructo,

I am very suspicious of that quote. It starts innocently enough " . . . there is nothing," and then it starts to meander off course and spin out of control. I would prefer to read it as ". . . there is no thing," instead of turning "no thing" into some "thing" called "nothing". "No thing" is proper. The rest of it requires you to assume that you know what the speaker means by "nothing in heaven", "mind" (I personally don't think anybody has one), etc., etc. I am also suspicious of the words you use. "Examine something as abstract as Being". Properly written "Be-ing" is not "some" "thing", it is not a thing. The reason "Be-ing" is written as "being" is so we can turn it into an "abstract thing" that can be examined. Right there is where the problem starts. You are already spinning out of control when you attempt to turn Be-ing into a "thing" called "being". Some "thing" that can be "proved" or disputed! You are not a thing called a human being. You are Be-ing. The problem with "getting that" is that if you "got it", you wouldn't have any "thing" to prove or dispute! You would have to fill your time with some other activity.

@Alan McDougall,

It is a matter of doing, not thinking, a philosophy of action. Thought itself is an obstacle and a hindrance. Use it when it is useful, for the things for which it is useful. As soon as thought starts to think about itself, it is lost in a hall of mirrors.

Be-ing is also no-thing in the sense understood by Zen. Hence - theimportance of nothing. :bigsmile:

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;137040 wrote:

It is a matter of doing, not thinking, a philosophy of action. Thought itself is an obstacle and a hindrance. Use it when it is useful, for the things for which it is useful. As soon as thought starts to think about itself, it is lost in a hall of mirrors.

Be-ing is also no-thing in the sense understood by Zen. Hence - theimportance of nothing. :bigsmile:

Aristotle, I believe, said that God spent His time thinking about thinking. And Flew entitled his book on critical thinking, "Thinking About Thinking". Unless you believe that accurate and logical thinking is something for which none of us needs improvement, why would believe that. From what I can tell, posters need more thinking about thinking rather than less.

@Alan McDougall,

This thread has officially spun out of control. I wish you all the best. Good bye.

@Dasein,

Dasein;137059 wrote:

This thread has officially spun out of control. I wish you all the best. Good bye.

"Officially?"...........

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;137052 wrote:

Aristotle, I believe, said that God spent His time thinking about thinking. And Flew entitled his book on critical thinking, "Thinking About Thinking".

Does that mean that Flew is God?

[QUOTEUnless you believe that accurate and logical thinking is something for which none of us needs improvement, why would believe that. From what I can tell, posters need more thinking about thinking rather than less.[/QUOTE]
Glad to oblige:

[CENTER]THINKING
ABOUT
THINKING[/CENTER]

Please post.

:flowers:

"Thinking is whatever man does whenever he doesn't know what to do." Ortega y Gasset

@Dasein,

being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it. we only think in terms of things, distinctions, numbers. all thought is digital. from this we can infer that which is prior, the transcendental function that imposes unity on qualia, and also on other concepts, in order to further abstract them.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

God is the self-unthinking or rethinking thought.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;137144 wrote:

being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it. we only think in terms of things, distinctions, numbers. all thought is digital. from this we can infer that which is prior, the transcendental function that imposes unity on qualia, and also on other concepts, in order to further abstract them.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

God is the self-unthinking or rethinking thought.

Reconstructo;

While you are championing the cause that "being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." aren't you be-ing at the same time?

You do have to "be" in order to be able to "wave the flag", right? So, there is you, be-ing, "waving the flag", right? Then there is this "concept" called "being" that you are espousing, right?

So, while you're espousing "being is concept" you are be-ing, right? You espousing is you be-ing. If you are be-ing and while be-ing you are espousing then you can't be what you're espousing? You can only be the one doing the espousing, right? What you're espousing is only a position, a representation you have made of your be-ing.

Be-ing transcends all of the representations. Who you are is bigger than all the causes you champion. You are not a "concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." You are not a representation. You are the one "waving the flag".

Just about all philosophy is about comparing representations. It's not about Be-ing. Don't confuse the two.

Dasein

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;137144 wrote:

being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it. we only think in terms of things, distinctions, numbers. all thought is digital. from this we can infer that which is prior, the transcendental function that imposes unity on qualia, and also on other concepts, in order to further abstract them.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

God is the self-unthinking or rethinking thought.

Is all thought digital, ultimately, because the brain is electrical? But don't the electrical components of the brain rely upon that most analog of things, blood? How does that affect the digital quality of the brain? Or does it?

Philosophy Forum

What is Metaphysics and quotes on what it is?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know