How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

[JackDaydream]

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?

[Angelo Cannata]

It's not useful at all, because metaphysics lacks too many important things:
- lacks self-criticism, because it would just destroy metaphysics itself
- considering subjectivity: our involvement as subjects in any reasoning makes impossible to conceive it as stable: this is against the staticity needed by metaphysics
- considering time: metaphysics needs to ignore time, because time makes everything temporary, while metaphysics wants permanent things
- humanity: metaphysics cannot be human, because humanity means limits, errors, contradiction
- perspectives, because they make everything relative, while metaphysics wants to be absolute; do, metaphysics needs to ignore the fact thst there are different perspectives in the world of thinking people
- progress, growth, improvement, development; metaphysics needs to ignore these things, because they mean change.

[JackDaydream]

It's not useful at all, because metaphysics lacks too many important things:
- lacks self-criticism, because it would just destroy metaphysics itself
- considering subjectivity: our involvement as subjects in any reasoning makes impossible to conceive it as stable: this is against the staticity needed by metaphysics
- considering time: metaphysics needs to ignore time, because time makes everything temporary, while metaphysics wants permanent things
- humanity: metaphysics cannot be human, because humanity means limits, errors, contradiction
- perspectives, because they make everything relative, while metaphysics wants to be absolute; do, metaphysics needs to ignore the fact thst there are different perspectives in the world of thinking people
- progress, growth, improvement, development; metaphysics needs to ignore these things, because they mean change.

The way your answer appears may point to the need for a revised approach to metaphysics rather than its elimination. It seems that you are saying that there is a need to recognise lack of stability and seeing absolutes. Within the time of pluralistic perspectives there is a difficulties seeing absolutes or universals, but, on the other hand, there may be a tendency to complete cultural and moral relativism. Is there not some kind of importance to the principle of a priori reason?

It may be that some metaphysics can involve too much rigidity, with lack of attention to specific details of life, especially with moral codes. However, it may go towards the other extreme, of everything being based on practical considerations. It may be important for philosophy to look at the practical matters of life rather be otherworldly but it could be that this leads to lack of concern for human beings and other lifeforms. Humanism, of course, was based on real concern for issues of human welfare whereas relativism can become a collapse of any clear foundations other than the smallest circle socially and the immediate. It may be that if metaphysics is seen as completely unimportant that this would mean that philosophy is almost thrown aside as an aspect of the past. There is the emergence of critical thinking and this may be useful, but does it mean that the writers of the past, including Kant and Schopenhauer are not relevant? As far as I can see the reading of such writers holds importance, but in conjunction with developments in the physical and social sciences, as well as other disciplines. It may be that this is a means for reflection and the development of finding one's own philosophy voice, as opposed to becoming lost in the sea of information and relativity.

[Angelo Cannata]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

[JackDaydream]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

It is extremely difficult to establish to what extent the foundations of ideas is within ourselves or external. In day to day reality it is almost impossible to ignore the external world. This is important in understanding of causality and can be the basis of concern for others. However, there are certain limitations to looking towards the external because there is the psychological dimension, as well as values being based on inner aspects of the self, such as the conscience.

Freud described the conscience, which he called the superego, as being a way of internalizing social norms, so the conscience is connected to the intersubjective aspects of experience. In developing any ideas a person is usually involved in interaction with others in some way, unless someone went out into the wilderness for long periods of isolation. As it is at present, most people access ideas online as much as in books.

It can be problematic if people cling to ideas which are too abstract or remote from the real world of individuals. It could be that many people see philosophy and especially metaphysics as being the domain of an ivory tower, with little relevance to life. Nevertheless, to emphasise the importance of authenticity, which can be a source of ethics does imply a need to establish some deeper or reflective self awareness.

Part of the issue may be about the way in which reason and emotions are balanced as much as being about the inner and outer aspects of life. Understanding of one's emotions is important as a basis for understanding those of others and reason is about being able to establish some kind of objective approach. But, the question may be how do these aspects correspond. Subjectivity involves both reasoning and emotions and objectivity can be about clearly established principles, such as those established through laws. The laws are not static and are updated on the basis of historical cases, but along with reason, but with regard for the inner aspects of experience.

[stevie]

... So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?

If one needs a (speculative) theory about one's life to be able to live satisfactorily then some kind of metaphysics (either philosophy or religion) is inevitable. If one does not need such a theory to be able to live satisfactorily then such a theory is dispensable and may even be disturbing when living in a collective that cultivates such a theory (because social interactions will be necessarily affected).

[JackDaydream]

... So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?

If one needs a (speculative) theory about one's life to be able to live satisfactorily then some kind of metaphysics (either philosophy or religion) is inevitable. If one does not need such a theory to be able to live satisfactorily then such a theory is dispensable and may even be disturbing when living in a collective that cultivates such a theory (because social interactions will be necessarily affected).

I agree that it is problematic if someone needs a speculative theory in order to live, in the sense of seeking one. Life is being lived all the time and cannot be put on hold until the truly established 'truth' is found. I have to admit that I may be in danger of spending my life reading and writing and not living fully. So, philosophy and its questing can be a hindrance and even I hope to move on and see this stage of exploration because I am trying to rebuild my life because during lockdown etc my whole established life fell apart, and philosophy was the destination which I am at present.

Generally, it is likely that many people don't read or think much about philosophy, although I have always done so. However, it is likely that most people build up pictures of reality and existence in childhood and education which are more implicit assumptions, and they may get revised. So, people may inherit the cultural knowledge and influence of their specific background.


The need to question or explore metaphysics may be when there are clashes of ideas. For example, there may be conflicts between science and religious perspectives and this may be a common issue because the two strands have both been influential historically and some of the fuzzy areas have left confusion, or as Iris Murdoch describes, 'a void'. The twentieth first century may be like the post-postmodern wasteland.

[Pattern-chaser]

Wow, that's quite a list!

It's not useful at all, because metaphysics lacks too many important things:

Interesting. What are the "important things" that metaphysics lacks?

- lacks self-criticism, because it would just destroy metaphysics itself

Metaphysics is often (maybe always) speculative. I wonder what the benefit of self-criticism is for a speculative discipline? I do not say that it is of no benefit, I'm saying that I can't see any such benefit...

- considering subjectivity: our involvement as subjects in any reasoning makes impossible to conceive it as stable: this is against the staticity needed by metaphysics

What is the "staticity" that metaphysics requires, and why does it require it?

- considering time: metaphysics needs to ignore time, because time makes everything temporary, while metaphysics wants permanent things

Does metaphysics "want permanent things"? Do you see metaphysics as unable to deal with temporary or transient phenomena?

- humanity: metaphysics cannot be human, because humanity means limits, errors, contradiction

Metaphysics is a human-created discipline, yes, but it is not human, nor can it be so. What are you getting at here?

As regards (what a Vulcan, or Mr Data, would see as) our shortcomings, I think that metaphysics might be better equipped than other philosophical disciplines to deal with such things. You obviously don't.

- perspectives, because they make everything relative, while metaphysics wants to be absolute; do, metaphysics needs to ignore the fact that there are different perspectives in the world of thinking people

Yet more impressions of metaphysics that I find surprising. Metaphysics can be both relative and absolute, I think, according to need. And why is perspective so difficult for metaphysics to address?

- progress, growth, improvement, development; metaphysics needs to ignore these things, because they mean change.

You mentioned permanence earlier on, now you refer to an aversion for change. Why do you think metaphysics can't handle change?

[Pattern-chaser]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

First let us note that the topic title asks if metaphysics can be a foundation for philosophy, not the foundation for philosophy.

I have never considered that humans might've looked within themselves in a search for foundations. Surely such things would be external? Hmmm.

Your reasoning does not seem to allow for the possibility that there is no suitable foundation (Gödel; quantum uncertainty; etc). And what would such a foundation have to do with "what is human"?

[JackDaydream]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

First let us note that the topic title asks if metaphysics can be a foundation for philosophy, not the foundation for philosophy.

I have never considered that humans might've looked within themselves in a search for foundations. Surely such things would be external? Hmmm.

Your reasoning does not seem to allow for the possibility that there is no suitable foundation (Gödel; quantum uncertainty; etc). And what would such a foundation have to do with "what is human"?

I am a little confused by your viewpoint, especially that you have never considered that human beings may look within themselves for meaning. As far as I see it, the history of philosophy is so bound up with looking within. It may be that aspects of the self were projected outside, and it is likely that there are various projective processes going on, including the political ones.

The issue here may be whether metaphysics is seen as an outside or inner area of exploration. The aspect of Plato's cave metaphor which seems back to front to me is that the people in the cave are looking outwards to the skies and the stars. The heavens were seen above, in the quest for objective reality, rather than as being part of the reality within. Many philosophers may have gone beyond this in trying to understand reality but, to some extent, metaphysics may have been understood as an objective outside quest, rather than bound up with the inner, subjective experiences of individuals.

[Angelo Cannata]

Wow, that's quite a list!

All that I said is, of course, depending on my idea of what metaphysics is. I know that there is a forest of different, intricate and even opposite ideas of what metaphysics is. I keep my personal idea because I find it productive and useful. I mean, having to face the fact that there are so many different definitions and concepts about what metaphysics is, I follow the criterion of choosing the concept of metaphysics that I find most fruitful, useful, productive.

So, my idea of metaphysics, that I find most useful and productive, has these characteristics: it is a system that wants to be definitive, absolute, conclusive, stable, certain, absolutely not exposed to any doubt; as such, it is external, objective, hard, undeniable, universal, essential, necessary, unescapable.

This should explain what I said.

I think that here we shouldn't change the topic to “What is metaphysics?”: there is no reason to divert the entire thread towards this direction. So, my definition of metaphysics is neither the best, nor the right one. I described it just to clarify what I said, not to discuss it. Discussing it is not forbidden, but I want to respect the topic of the thread, so, for me it is ok not to discuss extensively what metaphysics is: I am afraid it would bring us too far from the opening topic.

[Pattern-chaser]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

First let us note that the topic title asks if metaphysics can be a foundation for philosophy, not the foundation for philosophy.

I have never considered that humans might've looked within themselves in a search for foundations. Surely such things would be external? Hmmm.

Your reasoning does not seem to allow for the possibility that there is no suitable foundation (Gödel; quantum uncertainty; etc). And what would such a foundation have to do with "what is human"?

I am a little confused by your viewpoint, especially that you have never considered that human beings may look within themselves for meaning.

I wasn't thinking of meaning, I was wondering why humans would seek internally for "foundation". I sort of assumed, perhaps wrongly, that "foundation", here, referred to the foundation(s) of our thinking, not of meaning. Your topic title does refer to "metaphysics as a foundation for philosophy", so where did "meaning" suddenly appear from?

The issue here may be whether metaphysics is seen as an outside or inner area of exploration.

I think the exploration is inner, but the thing being explored is often not.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

So, my idea of metaphysics, that I find most useful and productive, has these characteristics: it is a system that wants to be definitive, absolute, conclusive, stable, certain, absolutely not exposed to any doubt; as such, it is external, objective, hard, undeniable, universal, essential, necessary, unescapable.

You might have mentioned that you found Jack's proferred definition unsuitable. It would've made for easier understanding of your concerns with metaphysics. As it is, I find your definition difficult to apply to any academic discipline I have encountered. It seems to bear some similarity to analytic philosophy, but that may be coincidental, or 'just me'. Your definition seems quite incompatible with Donald Palmer's "general, speculative worldview", wouldn't you say?

[Angelo Cannata]

I depends how we interpret his words “'The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systematic account of all reality and experience”. How can metaphysics be “complete” without being static? Doesn’t “general” mean universal? How can it be universal without being absolute, that is, independent from opinions? How can it be a complete account of all reality without being absolutely certain, not exposed to any doubt?

[JackDaydream]

As you wrote in the title, metaphysics is meant to work like a foundation, but that is exactly the problem. We humans realize that foundations cannot be in ourselves, because we are limited, weak, so the alternative is to find foundations external to us. This can be realized as a contradiction: how can something external to us be the foundation of what is human? How can we imagine that a system of ideas would be able to hold the role of guarantor of the authenticity of our humanity? Would you assign to your car or to your computer the ultimate responsibility to guarantee your authenticity of being human? It is absurd, but actually this is what happens when we look for metaphysics as ultimate foundation of something, such as philosophy or ethics.

First let us note that the topic title asks if metaphysics can be a foundation for philosophy, not the foundation for philosophy.

I have never considered that humans might've looked within themselves in a search for foundations. Surely such things would be external? Hmmm.

Your reasoning does not seem to allow for the possibility that there is no suitable foundation (Gödel; quantum uncertainty; etc). And what would such a foundation have to do with "what is human"?

I am a little confused by your viewpoint, especially that you have never considered that human beings may look within themselves for meaning.

I wasn't thinking of meaning, I was wondering why humans would seek internally for "foundation". I sort of assumed, perhaps wrongly, that "foundation", here, referred to the foundation(s) of our thinking, not of meaning. Your topic title does refer to "metaphysics as a foundation for philosophy", so where did "meaning" suddenly appear from?

The issue here may be whether metaphysics is seen as an outside or inner area of exploration.

I think the exploration is inner, but the thing being explored is often not.

The division between the inner and the outer is extremely important but complicated. Meaning is constructed subjectively but in relation to the objective shared understanding of reality. If someone sees from an entirely different point in the external world, such as believing that the sun is a god, the person is likely to be considered delusional. To disregard the shared aspects of existence would in extreme be fantasy, and even soliptism.

Of course, the constant friend or foe of philosophy and metaphysics is consciousness, leading to so much debate. It is here that you objective and subjective are navigated and balanced. Part of the problem with some metaphysics of the past was that reason was seen as the most important criteria, which may have led to too much emphasis on the abstract. It may be here that phenomenology may be important. That is because it brings emotions and the connection with ideas together, and with some potential for empirical investigation and verification through cognitive science.