3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 16th, 2022, 10:15 am
JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 7:29 pm
I have been thinking about this after reading an essay by Iris Murdoch, 'A House of Theory', in the volume of her writings, 'Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature'(1997). She describes a void and a need for 'A House of Theory' as there has been an increasing tendency towards an 'elimination of metaphysics'. A key passage from the essay which I wish to offer as a source for thought and contemplation is as follows,
'In the past philosophers have invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they are were facts concerning the nature of the mind or of the world. Philosophy since Hume has, in opposing dogmatic rationalist metaphysics in general, been critical of this tendency, but in varying ways. Briefly, criticism of metaphysics may proceed along Humian, Kantian, or Hegelian lines. Hume, who wished to maintain as rigorously as possible that we know only what our senses tell us, denied the existence of moral "facts" or "realities", analysed moral concepts into non-rational feelings and imaginative habits, and was prepared to let basic empirical empirical concepts suffer the same fate.
Kant, anxious to defend both the reality of our empirical knowledge and the dignity of our moral imagination into "categories", or fixed formal modes of apprehension which if directed upon empirical data would yield knowledge'.
What I find significant is the way in which Murdoch sees Kant, Hume and Hegel as so important in a move towards the empirical, which is much greater in the twentieth first century. It seems rather paradoxical that the writers she sees as important as eliminating former metaphysics have almost been rejected for being too metaphysical. Of course, there has been Wittgenstein's critique of the limits of language in understanding, as well as the movement of logical positivism. In addition, there has been the postmodern movement, with its deconstruction of language and meanings.
So, my purpose is to consider what is the importance of metaphysics in philosophy of the present time. I am aware that there is the underlying question of what is metaphysics, and that there was a thread on that topic previously. So, I will give a working definition from Donald Palmer's 'Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter'. He defines metaphysics as, 'The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systematic account of all reality and experience, usually involving an epistemology, an ontology, an ethics and an aesthetics.
It may be that speculation is queried by some, but even with science there is a need for thinking conceptually to formulate hypotheses and to interpret the findings. However, metaphysics as a way of constructing a worldview may be central to all else, including ideas about morality and politics. So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?
Hello Jack!
Hume, ironically enough, recognized the metaphysic's of conscious existence. In his Treatise of Human Nature, he woefully conceded to the metaphysic's of the Will (and related human sentient desires) hence:
Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12][14] Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle.
One could then interprete that as him being a Voluntarist. For example, in cognitive science:
Voluntaristic theories of psychology represent men primarily as beings who will certain ends and whose reason and intelligence are subordinate to will. The outstanding classical representatives are Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Arthur Schopenhauer.
And so, he's suggesting the Will takes primacy over reason. He recognized that particular piece of the existential human condition. My personal view is that it is an illogical mix of both (logic and will) but I agree it's more Will than logic. And that's primarily due to choice and the intrinsic need for happiness and purpose. The Will to be, is something beyond mere instinct to live. Our volition allows us to live, or not live. Quality (Qualia) of life matters.
Metaphysic's seem to matter after all... LOL
The relationship of Will and human nature to metaphysics is an important area. I do have a copy of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, which I have been meaning to read for some while, so I will try to have a read of that later today and see how that fits into this thread topic.
Regarding Schopenhauer it is hard to know where he stands as a metaphysician. He brought Kant's ideas down to human experiences. I was reading of his ideas recently in Alasdair MacIntyre's 'A Short History of Ethics', in which he interprets Schopenhauer in the following way,
'The world is the expression of blind striving or Will. We know our own inner nature as Will in direct experience; thought is but one of the outward forms or direct disguises taken by Will. Life is blind, cruel and meaningless; but we cling to life through extremes of pain and suffering. The natural world bears witness to the continuous reproduction of the species, and the continuous destruction of the individual. The forms remain the same; the individuals who exemplify them continually perish. (In this we get a hint of Schopenhauer's relation to Plato and Kant.) Thus experience testifies to the way in which the world is pervaded by pain and destruction, while religion and philosophy try to construct justifications for the universe which will show that pain and destruction have not the last word, and in so doing, they testify to the force of Cosmic Will, which has its aim the continuing existence of this desire for for continued existence.'
It seems as if the Schopenhauer's picture of reality, or Will, is far more in line with what Darwin describes as ' the survival as the fittest', with its emphasis on the fight for survival in it's most grim form. Of course, Schopenhauer is recognised as having a pessimistic approach. It probably does involve a choice about volition and a will to live, which has both a conscious and subconscious aspect, as well as the gravitation towards happiness.
It may connect to Freud's understanding of the Eros and Thanatos, and how this works as an energy force beyond the individual psyche. It is hard to work out to what extent we act or are acted upon by external forces, especially in relation to the concepts of good and evil, which were traditionally seen as metaphysical forces but more commonly seen as human constructs. This probably applies to all the opposites, and gets back to the issue of qualia, with the question of how experiences tie up with the nature of reality as experienced by conscious beings. Many discussions of consciousnes focus on the nature of neuroscience and the physical technicalities, but where science, including physics, is not able to explain fully, it may bring back some of the gaps and the basic questions of metaphysics as ones which still prevail.