Inspired by chapter 5 in Grendel, I have decided to venture onto my own metaphysical quest. And, surprisingly, its not as easy as it seems. Metaphysics, in its whole, accounts for over ten subsects of philosophy. This ranges from metaphysical holism (similar to the beliefs of methodoligical holism) to metaphysical realism (there are real objects, they exist independant of other objects, and have independant properties). However, the belief system of just "metaphysics" is entirely different altogether. Metaphysics, is truly, the structure of reality along with the structure of nature and constitution of such. Although many believe that Metaphysics goes hand in hand with science, its essence actual presupposes science. Are there, for example, physical objects at all, does every event even have a cause?
Tuhs, the heart of metaphysics.
The dragon in chapter 5 only briefly touches on the realm of metaphysical philosophy - however try looking it up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. There are literally pages upon pages of information regarding metaphysics, each paragraph nearly contradicting the last. Some believe that metaphysics itself does not exist itself, because it is "cognitively meaningless" and not "emperically verifiable". By the next paragraph, however, the textbook asserts that metaphysics "is knowable only through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism. It is not a part of science itself." Wait...what? The only truth in metaphysics is that there is no truth, that maybe nothing in itself exists, that maybe our perception of objects reality is entirely wrong.
Metaphysics in itself applies to all of philosophies as a whole - think about it. Locke's social contract cannot exist if nothing in itself exists - anything philosophy investigates is assumed a part of reality. Knowledge, values, social constructs, reasoning all become lucid and insiginificant if nothing else within nature is true. Weird.
Dualism is the term coined for realms that are not real - what would be true if nothing truly existed. These worlds are known as spatiotemporal worlds, and this brings an entirely new debate of realism versus anti-realism. I took a philosophy class at Emory over the summer, and we talked extensively on Kant's philosophical assertions. And trust me, there are alot. But this reminds me of Kant's transcendentalist idealism - basically the world only exists because of what we see. Basically, every person's view of the world is adapted personally to their conceptions of the world - everything from the view of human kind to language. Metaphysics is truly a strange, engrossing concept. The aspect I love and hate about philosophy is that questions remain, despite all the extensive information on the topics. No matter what one philosophy asserts, theres always a contradictory opinion to destroy the previous opinion.
According to metaphysics, however, it doesn't matter because nothing really exists anything. Well it might exist. But its not actually a given. Is anything itself actually a given?
My brain just blew up.
P.s. – The pictures in the chapter are extremely amusing. I’ve been sketching Grendel faces for a few days now. I’m becoming quite extraordinary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarson, your blog is really interesting and surely inspiring my interest in philosophy. I never really thought that much about metaphysics, and frankly it confuses me. I do believe, though, that not everything happens for a reason. I like the idea that a person's view of the world comes from his/her conceptions of the world. After all, our beliefs come from our experiences and impacts the people we are and eventually become
ReplyDelete