The question What is metaphysics? might guide one to be expect a universal discussion about metaphysics, but we relinquish that in order discuss one specific metaphysical question. This is into metaphysics, and the just a way to give metaphysics the possibility of properly introducing itself to us. Metaphysics is the subdivision of philosophy that investigates principles of actuality transcending those of any scrupulous science, traditionally, ontology and cosmology. It is also concerned with explaining the eventual nature of being and the world.
Main text
Many Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. David Lewis, endorsed a view in On the Plurality of Worlds, called Concrete Modal realism, according to which facts about how things could have been are made factual by other concrete worlds in which things are different. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds; that is, we could not envisage it to be otherwise. A possible fact is one that is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that, cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed.
But in contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as analytic propositions, e.g. All bachelors are unmarried. The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less contentious view might be that self-identity is obligatory, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any x, it is not identical to itself; this is known as the law of identity, a putative first principle . Aristotle describes the principle of contradiction, It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing, this is the most certain of all principles, wherefore they who reveal refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms.
As a discipline, Metaphysics was a essential part of academic question and scholarly education even before the age of Aristotle. Long considered the Queen of Sciences , its issues were considered no less significant than the other main prescribed subjects of physical science, mathematics, medicine, poetics and music. During the seventeenth century, the beginning of modern philosophy problems that were not initially considered within the bounds of metaphysical have been added to its purview, while other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now classically downgraded to their own split regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, philosophy of perception, and philosophy of science.
Criticism
Immanuel Kant given a limited role to the theme and argued against knowledge progressing away from the world of our representations, except to knowledge that the nominal exist. Though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a site at least to think them as things in themselves; or else we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be manifestation without anything that appears (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason ). Metaphysics has been harassed, at dissimilar times in history, as being futile and excessively indistinct. David Hume went so far as to write:-If we take in our hand any volume; of theology or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it surround any conceptual reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning regarding matter of fact and existence? No. consign it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but literalism and fantasy (David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ).
Reference
Thomas Sheehan, Reading Heideggers What Is Metaphysics? . 2008. Web.
Everything that happens in nature seems to follow a certain order. For instance, a river has tributaries that flow in a certain direction. The river also follows a certain course and may drain in a larger water body that is far away from where the river originated. For order to exist there has to be a driving force.
I believe that there exists a powerful force that dictates the order that nature follows. This force is more powerful than any other force in the universe. I believe that this force is God. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. As God is not physically visible, I therefore believe in the existence of a spiritual realm. This realm consists of other spiritual beings for example angels.
I also believe in the existence of free will. Human beings are able to differentiate between right and wrong. They have the free will to choose what to do, be it right or wrong. With the existence of a spiritual realm, I believe in the existence of the soul and life after death. When the physical body dies, the soul lives on in the spiritual realm.
A good example of the order in nature is a seed. When a seed is planted, it germinates into a seedling and later grows into a tree. Another example is how insects such as butterflies follow the egg larva pupa adult stages of development. Existence of rivers, lakes, oceans, deserts and forests exhibits order.
The different ecosystems support different life forms and this also shows order. For example, numerous species of fish can only survive in fresh water bodies while others can only survive in salty water bodies. None of them however can survive on land.
This shows that there is order in nature. Everything that happens is driven by a force. All these forces also require a driving force and this is where God comes in. He is the supreme force that drives all other forces in nature and in the entire universe.
I believe that everything in existence was created by God. I therefore reject the alternative philosophies of existence. These include the theories of evolution and the big bang. It is not possible for an ape to evolve into a human being as the two belong to different species. Evolution cannot explain the existence of other life species like the numerous plants that come in all shapes and sizes.
The big bang theory also cannot explain the existence of life and the order in nature. None of the two theories can explain the existence of earth and the other planets or even the existence of life after death and the spiritual realm.
Having this understanding will assist me to keep focused in life. I will appreciate the beauty and wonders of nature more. The knowledge of God will make me live a life that is morally upright. To keep with the Godly ways, I will endeavor to assist the less privileged in the society and to avoid oppressing other people. In order to take care of my body, I will eat healthy meals and exercise regularly.
To prepare my soul for the afterlife, I will follow the religious teachings and exercise my free will to choose right over wrong. I will also study hard to gain more knowledge on things that will assist me in life.
From the beginning of the philosophy development as a definite science, philosophers were preoccupied with the major humans question: Who we are? Why are we here? Metaphysics is that particular branch of philosophy which deals with these issue solving.
One of the major issues of metaphysics is correlation between human mind and human body. For instance, Descartes defines a human being as a thinking substance (Kim 36). Thus, philosophers agree on the fact that our body is a physical substance, but our mind is intangible substance. At the moment it is, may be, the only fact accepted by everyone, since there are many approaches to defining the mind-body issue.
Our body is regarded as a substance which is subordinate to our mind, though it is necessary to point out that our body has its own impulses which have nothing to do with our mind, on the contrary, our mind cannot exist separately from our body, though it cannot be perceived and distinguished as an organ of human body (Kim 40). This mind-body issue is also regarded in terms of monistic, dualistic and pluralistic approaches.
First of all, it is necessary to define the essence of these approaches and then to consider mind-body issue in terms of these approaches. The basic idea of monism is that everything in the world originates from one substance; some philosophers suggest that everything is based on air; others insist that water is the substance forming everything in the Universe (Kim 432).
Philosophers who defend pluralistic approach argue that everything has its own origin; they insist that everything in the world is pluralistic (Kim 432). Dualism is based on the idealism, which is the extreme opposite of these forms of materialism , and which suggests that the only things that exist are minds and their ideas (Kim 432).
Thus monistic and pluralistic approaches to mind-body issue suggest that mental acts, events and states are caused by brain and central nervous system which is physical substance, i.e. our body (Kim 432). Dualistic approach to the issue is based on the statement that human body and human mind cannot be reducible to or explicable in terms of the other (Kim 432).
Some philosophers consider the mind-body issue in terms of God intervention, and freedom and determinism. Thus, this approach suggests that peoples actions are determined by Gods will, thus, presenting dualistic approach (Kirkpatrick 49).
Such determinism deprives people of freedom of action and thought, though a lot of philosophers state that even in terms of divine determinism people have freedom of action, since God doesnt determines peoples actions and thoughts, but rather foresees all the events in advance. Thus, according to this approach human is physical substance determined by divine will. It is necessary to add that deterministic approach isnt confined to theology only.
Some philosophers involve biology and physics, stating that humans are determined by the laws of physics, biology and common laws of our Universe (Kirkpatrick 65). It is necessary to point out that deterministic approach to solving mind-body issue contributes to the dualistic approach of defining who people are.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that though the issue of mind-body correlation is still unsolved, philosophers are likely to consider it in terms of dualistic approach, which suggests that human body and mind are indivisible substances which constitute human.
Works Cited
Kim, Jaegwon. A Companion to Metaphysics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Kirkpatrick, F.G. Together bound: God, history, and the religious community. New York: Oxford University Press US, 1994
There can be a few doubts as to the fact that Immanuel Kant did contribute to the development of Western philosophical thought rather immensely. Nevertheless, in light of recent discoveries in the field of neurology and psychology, many of his analytical insights, concerned with the justification of the idea that the metaphysical mode of cognizing the surrounding reality is indeed legitimate, appear thoroughly outdated. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the earlier suggestion at length.
The line of argumentation, in defense of metaphysics, deployed by Kant throughout the course of his work Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, initially aimed at exposing the fallaciousness of David Humes empiricist/agnostic philosophy.
According to Hume, experience is the starting point of just about any form of a rationale-based cognition. In its turn, experience consists of impressions and ideas/judgments, which are the cognitions actual instruments. This, of course, presupposes that there is no possibility for people to be able to come up with thoroughly objective judgments as to the essence of a particular emanation of the surrounding reality.
After all, once we assume that all analytical judgments derive out of experience, there can be very little logic to considering them analytical per se. The reason for this is apparent individuals experience-related judgments are necessarily subjective because it is specifically peoples endowment with the sensory apparatus, which allows them to perceive the world, in the first place.
However, given the fact that our sensations often turn out to be grossly misleading, there is no good rationale to think that our experience-based analytical judgments/decisions can be thought of in terms of a pure reason. In its turn, this presupposes that people are incapable of attaining an insight into things in themselves, by definition.
Kant addresses Humes argument, in this respect by pointing out to the fact that just about all the rationale-based judgments can be categorized as analytical, on the one hand, and synthetical, on the other.
Analytic judgments are those that presuppose a universally recognizable truth-value of provided definitions to a particular phenomenon/subject matter in question: When we have reason to consider a judgment necessarily universal& we must consider it objective also, that is, that it expresses not merely a reference of our perception to a subject but a quality of the object (Boylan and Johnson 182).
The following is the example of an analytical judgment a square has four corners. Analytic judgments are always based on the law of association . That is, they either affirm or negate the referenced state of affairs with the concerned subject matter.
This is the reason why all analytical judgments are necessarily the a priori ones in order to be able to come up with them, one does not need to have had the experience of having been affected by the referenced subject/phenomenon. In analytical statements, the meaning of the judgments predicate derives out of what appears to be the objective quality of the referenced subject.
Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, are those that presuppose that, while coming up with them, individuals necessarily add an additional meaning to the discursive quality of the subject matter in question. The provided definition implies that the element of experience plays a crucial role, within the context of how people formulate their synthetic judgments.
According to Kant, these are the a posteriori synthetic judgments. Nevertheless, there are also the so-called a priori synthetic judgments, which imply that in order to come up with them; people must be capable of exercising their ability to reason purely (without any references being made to experience).
In its turn, this indirectly proves the de facto existence of a pure reason. A priori synthetic judgments commonly take place within the context of people indulging in mathematical reasoning. For example, even though that the formula 4+3=7 may appear, as such, that is best tackled within the conceptual framework of an analytical inquiry (based upon the law of association), this is far from being the case.
After all, the formulas predicate does not derive out of what both added numbers are, as things in themselves, but rather out of the very process of adding. That is, in order for an individual to be able to solve this formula, he or she will need to abstragise from the qualitative implications of both numbers, while constructing an essentially new discursive subject matter 12.
What it means is that, contrary to what Hume was suggesting, there is indeed a good rationale in believing that the very reason why people are able to operate with utterly abstract categories, is that they are endowed with the sense of a pure reason. This sense is not being affected by the functioning of their sensory apparatus and presupposes the possibility for people to be able to perceive, before experiencing.
Hence, the discursive significance of the Kantian concept of an intuition-fueled understanding: The concept of cause& is a pure concept of the Understanding, which is totally disparate from all possible perception and only serves to determine the representation subsumed under it, relatively to judgments in general, and so to make a universally valid judgment possible (183).
Apparently, Kant considered his line of reasoning, in regards to the nature of a priori synthetic judgments, as such that does in fact validates the metaphysical form of cognition: The judgments, which the Understanding forms alone from sensuous intuitions, are far from being judgments of experience. For (these judgments)& must express what experience in general, and not what the mere perception contains (184).
According to the philosopher, this suggests that, contrary to the provisions of philosophical agnosticism, it is indeed possible for the manner, in which people go about assessing the surrounding reality, to contain the elements of trandescent reasoning, without the legitimacy of the obtained analytical results being undermined, as a result. Kants point of view, in this respect, establishes the supremacy of consciousness over matter, while indirectly confirming the soundness of the Descartian body-mind dualism.
Nevertheless, as it was mentioned in the Introduction, despite the fact that the conceptual premise, upon which Kantian metaphysical philosophy is based, does appear logically sound, it is being inconsistent with what todays psychologists/neurologists know about the actual mechanics of consciousness.
For example, Kants conceptualization of a pure reason, outlined earlier, presupposes the possibility for peoples sense of a priori intuition (or Understanding) to be discussed in terms of a mental energy, the qualitative subtleties of which remain unrelated to what happened to be the physiologically predetermined aspects of their sense of self-identity and their memories of the past. During the course of the 18th century, this idea was considered fully legitimate.
Nowadays, however, this can no longer be the case. This is because, as of today, biologists possess a plenty of proofs, as to the fact that, despite being endowed with an ability to operate with highly abstract categories, the representatives of Homo Sapiens species are nothing but survival machines for genes that define both: peoples physical appearance and their cognitive inclinations.
As Dawkins pointed out: We are survival machines robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes (2). In its turn, this suggests that we cannot discuss intuition (Understanding) outside of how it increases the chances of peoples physical survival at least until the time when they pass their genes to the representatives of next generations.
Therefore, intuition (Understanding) is nothing but peoples ability to choose in favor of a circumstantially appropriate behavioral pattern while facing a particular challenge. It is needless to mention, of course, that formally speaking, ones intuition has very little to do with what were his or her personal experiences of the past. However, the experiential essence of intuition becomes quite apparent, once we assess the discussed subject matter from an evolutionary perspective.
It is important to understand that genes do not think they simply contain information, concerned with the multitude behavioral matrixes, the triggering of which is done automatically. What it means is that, when intuitively deciding in favor of a particular course of action, while facing a cognitive challenge, people do not take an advantage of their de facto ability to indulge in pure reasoning.
Rather, their unconscious psyche prompts them to act in the most circumstantially justified manner. In its turn, the subtleties of how our unconscious psyche causes us to act, reflect what used be the experiences of our predecessors having dealt with similar circumstances all the necessary information, in this respect, is contained in genes. What it means is that, contrary to what Kant does, there can be very little reason to think of intuition (Understanding), as being of clearly non-experiential essence.
Even though that it indeed appears to people that, while thinking in abstract terms, they do attain a new synthetic knowledge, this is nothing but a perceptional illusion. Intuition (Understanding) is consciously repressed memories of the past. In other words, the very laws of nature deem cognition secondary to experience, which in full accordance with what Hume used to suggest, presupposes the conceptual fallaciousness of a metaphysical approach to cognition.
The fact that there is no pure reason, as Kant defines it, can also be illustrated in regards to the non-existence (or, rather to the relativistic existence) of what this philosopher used to refer to as noumenons (universally applicable and yet non-experiential categories of logic/cognition).
The validity of this statement can be shown, in relation to the ethnographic studies of Lucien Levy-Bruhl. While traveling through the remote/rural areas of South-East Asia, Africa and Australia, he realized that the actual reason why he often used to experience communication problems with natives, was not due to the lack of his proficiency in these peoples language, but rather due to the fact that, as compared to himself, the subjects of his ethnographic research were differently wired, in the psycho-cognitive sense of this word.
For example, while being asked to define a qualitative difference between the notions of fruit, meat and fish, on the one hand, and the notions of spear, fishing rod and rifle, on the other, these people could not quite do it. This is because, unlike what it happened to be the case with Westerners, endowed with the Faustian (analytical) mentality, the natives could not help but thinking holistically.
This is the reason why it would never occur to them to assess the semiotic meaning of the referred notions in terms of an abstract logic (by categorizing them as raw materials and instruments). Instead, these people cognized the earlier mentioned notions within the context of the notions perceived usefulness (De Laguna 556). Because the mentioned notions are equally associated with the idea of usefulness, there could no difference between them.
In addition, Levy-Bruhl realized that the questioned natives were quite incapable of cognizing the concepts of space and time in the similar manner with Westerners. For example, instead of saying after tomorrow they would prefer saying would say in two days from now, which in turn suggested the concerned peoples lack of comfortableness with the concept of time, as such that could be stretched or condensed.
This, of course, points out the fact that, contrary to Kant, a priori noumenons cannot be discussed as things in themselves, regardless of what happened to be the essence of peoples associative experiences. It is specifically peoples exposure to external circumstances, which prompts them to indulge in one or another mode of an imperative thinking, and not the sheer strength of the applied mental effort, on their part, to think outside empiricism.
It is rather ironic that, while striving to revive metaphysics, Kant contributed the most towards the eventual decline of this particular philosophical method. One of the reasons for this is that, despite the sheer sophistication of Kantian metaphysics, there can be very little practical value to it.
Apparently, while elaborating on the subject of analytical and synthetic judgments, Kant remained unaware of the fact that philosophy must serve the purpose of helping people to be in the full control of their lives not prompting them to begin hating the very concept of philosophy with passion.
This is because, as it happened to be the case with just about any science, philosophy is best conceptualized in terms of an informational model, which more or less adequately describes the surrounding reality. What Kant did, however, was disassembling this reality down to its elemental components for the sake of being able to assemble it back. However, after he did it, the reassembled reality ceased emanating liveliness.
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the suggestion that Kants promotion of metaphysics (as a fully valid philosophical method) can no longer be considered conceptually valid, entirely correlates with the papers initial thesis.
This is because, throughout the course of the centuries, following Kants death, the development of Western empirical sciences attained an exponential momentum, which in turn resulted in people being freed of idealistic illusions, in regards to the actual purpose of their existence. As of today, only perceptionally arrogant/euro-centrically minded/religious individuals continue to believe in the existence of non-experiential knowledge, accessible only to self-reflecting and often behaviorally inadequate philosophers, such as Kant used to be.
This idea, however, contradicts what even mildly intelligent people know about the actual mechanics of the universes functioning. Therefore, even though Kants philosophy will continue being referred to as such, that represents an undisputed historical value; there can be very little rationale in trying to find any wisdom of a practical value in it.
Works Cited
Boylan, Michael and Charles Johnson. Philosophy: An Innovative Introduction: Fictive Narrative, Primary Texts, and Responsive Writing. Boulder: Westview Press, 2010. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Print.
De Laguna, Frederica. Levy-Bruhls Contributions to the Study of Primitive Mentality. The Philosophical Review 49.5 (1940): 552-566. Print.
The matrix is based on the philosophical story about the disembodied brain that was floating in a vat in a scientific laboratory where the experiment was conducted. In this case, the scientists connected the brain to the computer with world simulations to simulate the brain with the same input that the brain in a human body could receive and the output was recorded back to the computer.
The brain in a vat was therefore in its normal state just as the normal brain in a human being only that it lacked the body of a human being and the brain viewed things just like any other person.
Although the brain was in the laboratory and not in the body, it received an input that made it perceive that it was outside walking freely in the broad day light. This experiment about the brain raised many concerns about the beliefs of people hence the different hypotheses, which support or criticize the matrix.
The matrix hypothesis suggests that human beings are in the same situation just like the brain in a vat although in matrix the cognitive system is computerized not as in the case of human beings where the cognitive system is natural.
Envatted brains will have false beliefs as compared to the counterparts and this creates confusion since it is not easy to know whether someone is in a matrix or not. This results to the skeptical hypothesis since the matrix hypothesis seems to falsify most of the beliefs held by the people (Putnam 88).
George Berkeley holds the view that brains in a vat are not deluded since they have correct beliefs about their own world. He says that appearance is reality because what people feel, see or taste are realized to be real through the interpretation of the brain.
Reality can be viewed as the electrical signals, which are interpreted by the human brain. According to George Berkeley, reality is what is perceived. Berkeley supports the view of the matrix hypothesis that human beings are in a matrix and disputes the view that the matrix hypothesis is skeptical using the idealism of reality. This therefore supports the view that what the brain in a vat believed is real (Bostrom 3).
Chalmers on the other hand uses the Metaphysical hypothesis to support the views of the matrix hypothesis that human beings are in a matrix. About metaphysical hypothesis, Chalmers argues that the brain and the laws of physics as well as worlds creations determine reality.
In the metaphysical hypothesis, the physical processes are computational where the cognitive system is separate from the physical processes and that reality is created by those beings in the outside physical space and time.
The hypothesis endorses Berkeleys idealism by explaining the ordinary processes that underlie reality on that the processes in metaphysical are similar to those that take place in the matrix hypothesis. He therefore explains this view using the three hypotheses (Searle 85).
The Creation Hypothesis
According to this hypothesis, space-time in the physical world is determined by a supernatural being that controls the physical world from outside the space. It is therefore right to conclude that many people in the world can believe this hypothesis especially those who believe that God created the world and that God is outside the world.
If it is true that God created the universe then the creation hypothesis is true and the matrix hypothesis is true. Chalmers therefore believes that he has the body while in a vat and that he is in Tucson even though he was in Australia (Searle 86).
The Computational Hypothesis
About this hypothesis, all processes in the space-time that involve computation are microphysical. This explains the view that physics is not the base of reality just like the microphysical processes, which underlie the chemical processes.
This therefore explains that reality underlie some computational processes. Some scientists suggest that physical reality can be a result of interacting bits in the cellular automata governed by some principles. Bits in this case are pure differences united by basic states to create reality (Putnam 99).
The Mind-Body Hypothesis
The hypothesis explains that the human mind is comprised of processes that are outside the physical space-time and it receives its input from the physical space-time and sends it back. This is explained further with the view that the human minds are nonphysical but they interact with the physical bodies (Searle 88).
The metaphysical hypothesis therefore combines the three hypotheses together to prove that the matrix hypothesis operates on the basis similar to the creation, mind-body, and computational hypothesis. It states that the world and its contents were created by beings outside the same world and that the computational processes constitute the microphysical processes.
The three hypotheses about computation, creation and the body mind constitutes metaphysical hypothesis. It further states that the computational processes, which constitute the microphysical processes, are designed by being such as the computer in the case of the matrix hypothesis is designed.
Metaphysical hypothesis and combination hypothesis are similar where one is a version of the other. However, the relationship among the three parts is specified in the metaphysical hypothesis (Putnam 100).
Chalmers argues that the metaphysical hypothesis holds the same view as the matrix hypothesis. He uses the three areas to explain the hypothesis that is the body-mind, computational and the creation. According to metaphysical hypothesis human beings posses cognitive system in mind that is isolated. This is similar to matrix hypothesis on how input is received and processed in the mind (Bostrom 4).
According to computational hypothesis, input is sent to the cognitive system from the external time-space and the feedback is sent back. About creation hypothesis, physically designed processes for informing the world create reality. According to the matrix hypothesis, human beings design computers that are used to send output to the cognitive system. This shows that the metaphysical hypothesis is linked to the matrix hypothesis.
To accept the truth underlying reality as explained in the metaphysical hypothesis means accepting the matrix hypothesis. The domain constituting the cognitive system and computers designed by other human beings interact.
If one accepts the creation hypothesis of the world, he or she accepts the matrix hypothesis and the metaphysical hypothesis. The world is therefore made of interactions between human beings and microphysical computations, which are not part of them. This therefore explains the basic nature of reality (Bostrom 4).
The matrix hypothesis can be viewed as the creation myth. The creation of the world took place long time ago when there were no people but the history exists right from the big bang and many other myths about the creation.
In the matrix, the creator is a machine, which simulate the input and in the creation of the world, the nonphysical mind started to exist after the envatted cognitive systems were attached to the simulation (Bostrom 4).
In the two hypotheses, there is a contrast that simulation is not real. The matrix hypothesis suggests that the simulation of physical processes in computers exist while the metaphysical hypothesis explains that the physical processes do not exist.
The computational hypothesis tries to unite the two but it fails to some extent because as much as the computational level underlies physical processes, which are real, there are some computational processes that cannot yield reality.
Simulation of physical reality requires computational elements with real particles. Details corresponding with the physical processes should therefore be involved in the computation. The other principle rests on an abstract computation, which can underlie the physical reality (Searle 89).
The two hypotheses succeed in justifying that the matrix hypothesis is correct by saying that human beings are in a matrix. The beliefs of the brain in a vat are not a delusion as they are proofed to be correct. In addition, the fact that it is in the dark room does not imply being alone. This can be explained using the analogy that human beings have their mind outside physical space and time.
For instance, when someone is in cold water the brain receives the input that it is in the cold water but one may think that since the brain is not in the water it is therefore not exposed to the coldness. It would be wrong to conclude that the person in the cold water has a wrong belief. This proves that envatted beings have correct beliefs (Putnam 102).
The fact that envatted beings may think that they are performing actions, which they are not or being in places that they have never been may create doubts but the two hypotheses try to explain the idea with relevant analogies. By the brain in a vat, believing that it is walking in Tucson does not mean that the belief is false. This is because the word walking could be inferring to different meanings depending on the language.
The brain in a vat therefore performs the action of walking in its environment, which is of course, different from the environment someone could be. The beliefs held by the brains in a vat are therefore correct and cannot be seen as being skeptical (Bostrom 5).
The aspect of not being sure whether one is in the matrix or not is further explained using real and virtual concept. For instance if one is in the matrix and refers to a certain word for example head the term will be referring to the virtual head and not the real head . The concepts are therefore made up of bits, which constitute the virtual concept in the matrix.
The ways things are perceived by people differ since people have different views on which part of the bit is given to the virtual concepts as opposed to the real concepts. The two hypotheses failed to distinguish clearly the bits between the virtual for those in the matrix and bits to be used for real terms by those outside the matrix.
Works Cited
Bostrom, Newton. Are You Living in A Computer Simulation ? Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2003): 243. Print
Putnam, Henry. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print
Searle, Janet. Can Computers Think ? In Minds, Brains, and Science. Massachusetts : Harvard University Press. 1984. Print
Definition: Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being, of reality, of existence (Hetherington, 2013, p. 11)
Historical Developments: Platos teleological impulse (Goetschel, 2012, p. 220); Hegels attack on fundamentalism and the subsequent introduction of the concept of Logos (Mall, 2000, p. 112); the Geisteswissenschaften and the Naturwissenschaften demarcation (Scott, 2014, p. 486); Troeltschs explanation of the transitory and the ethical dimensions (Kerr, 2008, p. 29); Meineckes Die Entstehung des Historismus (Stark, 2014, p. 239); Hans-Georg Gadamers Truth and Method (Gadamer, 2013).
Schools Of Thought: Materialism, Idealism, Dualism, Postmodern schools (Linguistic Analysis, No One Reality, Multiple realities, Pragmatism, Existentialism, Feminism) (Hetherington, 2013)
Key Contributors: Plato, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, George Berkeley (Solomon & Higgins, 2013).
Principal Issues Metaphysics: Issues and types of freedom, types of determinism, nature of reality, nature of humanity (Hetherington, 2013)
Analysis
As a set of theories and concepts that allows for the study of the concept of reality, as well as determining the place of a human being within it, metaphysics seems to be dependent on the issues related to society and social evolution in terms of its major concerns. As Hetherington (2013) shows, the present-day metaphysics provides a standpoint on the issues regarding feminism and existentialism, as well as the conflict between an individual and the society (the No One Reality).
Being a graphic representation of the pragmatist interpretation of reality, modern metaphysics focuses on the role of an individual within the present-day world, therefore, allowing an individual to question the reasons for their existence, locate their place in the Universe in general and the society in particular, determine the role that the individual in question plays in the contemporary society, etc.
Indeed, a closer look at the tendencies in the modern Metaphysics will show that the theory has evolved from considering the study of being to the analysis of the relationships between different elements of reality. To be more specific, the significance of agents, be it a human being, a certain phenomenon, or a concept, is being considered through the lens of various social tendencies in the metaphysics of the 1st century.
For example, the freedom related issues, as well as types of freedom, while seemingly abstract, does help view the possibility of liberation through the lens of an individual. More to the point, the individuals concept of liberty is envisioned as a projection of the individuals understanding of liberty onto the socially accepted concept of the specified phenomenon. In other words, when it comes to freedom, metaphysics not only prevents from viewing the phenomenon isolated from the social tendencies, but states that there is no way to separate the individuals and the societys vision of reality.
It could be argued that the No One Reality is the only theory that exists in modern metaphysics (Hetherington, 2013). Indeed, as the above-mentioned analysis has shown, there is no way to view reality other than from the viewpoint foisted onto a person by the society that the latter lives in. herein the paradox lies; what may seem as obvious and materialistic may happen to be the illusions caused by the acceptance of the viewpoint of the society.
However, without the latter, making ones own stance on reality is barely possible. Creating new challenges and offering new food for thoughts, metaphysics has taken a new shape in the 21st century, putting a string emphasis on the current social and cultural issues.
Reference List
Gadamer, H.-G. (2013). Truth and method. New York, NY: A&C Black.
Goetschel, W. (2012). The discipline of philosophy and the invention of modern Jewish thought. Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press.
Hetherington, S. (2013). Metaphysics and epistemology: A guided anthology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerr, N. R. (2008). Christ, history and apocalyptic: The politics of Christian mission. Cornwall, UK: Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd.
Mall, R. (2000). Intercultural philosophy. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Scott, J. (2014). A dictionary of sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. & Higgins, K. (2013). The big questions: A short introduction to philosophy. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Stark, W. (2014). Social theory and Christian thought: A study of some points of contact. Collected essays around a central theme. New York, NY: Routledge.
There are many theories that have been proposed and supported by researchers in the area of metaphysics. Materialism is the one where everything in the world is directly connected to matter. Everything in this world is material and is made up of materials. Therefore, the human body and mind are also material. This would have its spirits driven for reproduction or sustenance when hungry and so on. All the requirements that a person identifies himself to, are materialistic.
Idealism on the other hand visualizes the entire world as something pictured by the mind. Everything is an idea in the minds of the people; the world, the animals, and the entire universe. It is considered as something unreal and could vanish at any given point in time. Maya or magic as the Hindu doctrine calls it. Whereas there are others who believe in the differentiation of mind and body; they exist as separate entities. Most religious entities support this concept of isolation between mind and body and that they are different and exist in different planes.
On the other hand, Post Modernism views the existence of multiple ideas at the same time. There can be more than one truth to a problem. What is right and what is wrong is not dependent on the object of interest or on the methods of justice, but in the eyes of the perceiver. It is the mind and the state of the perceiver which makes the person draw any concluding solution to the reality issue at hand. But ideally according to Post Modern view, there is no solution to reality problems. There are multiple realities existing at the same time and the human mind is still not fit to comprehend the size of the problem.
What is real?
Most of the theories are wrought out with the thoughts of men constrained by the activities and scientific thought available at those times. With the passage of time and with the availability of more direct knowledge, there are lots of variations in the understanding of what makes up reality. What is real, does not depend on what is the final state of matter that every being in this world might really become. But the final state whether it is the faith in ghost or soul or it is just vanishing into the materialistic nature of the world, it could be the revealer of the truth to the mankind. But since there is no one person who has come back from death to let us know what is really happening, it is hard to tell what reality is.
Reality is something that is highly impossible for the human mind to comprehend and understand as the post modernistic view points out. This can also be pointed out using some of the other methods employed in terms of the Clock work rule. In a clock, the manufacturer knows what goes into it. He also knows that he does not insert a screw or a miniscule metal component that is not really required by the clock. The same way to expect the nature to have any redundancy in its work built in is largely wrong. There can only be those components to the large nature clock that goes around as sun and moon and earth, will have their own way of identifying what the other one is doing. But at the same time, it is very difficult for the components of this system to know what the whole system is doing. For instance, as a whole we the manufacturer of the clock would know that the purpose of the clock is to show time. But for the spring or a gear wheel inside to know that the purpose of the clock is to show time, might take millions of years to realize. In any case, reality when you are a part of it is highly difficult to identify and understand.
I think that the reality is impossible to visualized or identified with the current knowledge levels that we possess. In scientific terms, only those that can be proved to exist are taken as existing; whether it is the black hole or the hot core of the earth. To prove, it has to be sensed. Human perception can sense more than what it is rated to by using microscopes or RF telescopes or radars, etc. Devices built by man could make him sense more than what his five senses could offer. Anything is proven only if it is sensed to exist. This sensing could happen using any device that man might identify today or might identify in days to come. My view on it is entirely post modernist.
Multiple Realities
The existence of multiple realities is not without questions. Multiple realities exist only in the minds of men and women. For the same object, there could be multiple realities and there could be more than one true reality too as visualization. In reality, there is no one single rule or law that governs what one has to visualize or see in the realism. Reality for the person is as per his visualization; though the reality is of course, one for him. As presented by Schrodinger with his famous cat experiment or by Everett, the impact of mind on quantum mechanics is mathematically derivable. This also implies that there is a possibility of multiple universes and therefore, a possibility of multiple realities decided by individual minds. When the Schrodinger Cat is poisoned using a quantum event, according to Everett the universe splits into two copies, one containing a live cat and the other a dead cat. Both universes contain one copy of the experimenter too, each of whom thinks he is unique. In general, if a quantum system is in a superposition of, say, n quantum states, then, on measurement, the universe will split into n copies. In most cases, n is infinite. Hence we must accept that there are actually an infinity of parallel worlds co-existing alongside the one we see at any instant. Moreover, there are an infinity of individuals, more or less identical with each of us, inhabiting these worlds. It is a bizarre thought . Why should such forking occur? We do not know. Or is it really happening? We do not have an answer.
There can be more than one reality in terms of the views had by people on the reality. As a matter of fact, there is also the concept that a green color perceived by you could be different from the green perceived by me. There can of course, be only one reality as it exists for every individual. For instance, there can be only one earth but the reality as seen by various people could be different from one another. The Moon might be perceived as a God by some. Moon could just be a natural satellite of Earth for scientifically minded. But there is but only one Moon. This is the existence of reality. There can be only one of them. But there can be multiple thought processes and visualizations that are manifestations of this reality in every person.
But the information and knowledge that we possess today is grossly insufficient to establish multiple realities without any doubt.
The Real Reality
If so, what makes the real reality? The reality that every one has in their mind could be different from one another. There can be multiple realities or visualized realities. But the realization of the real reality could happen only if there is substantial information available on the issue under question. For example, Earth is flat is no more a question or a concept. It has been answered with clarity that Earth is spherical. Anyone who is arguing today that Earth is flat can be disproved that their concept is wrong.
So is the case with other realities too. Until the truth and the facts of the case are clear it is difficult to determine which of these visualizations is the true reality or whether the multiple realities themselves are true. Therefore, it is only fair that all the reality issues are held in abeyance till all the facts of the matter are clearly known. Secondly, there can also be cases where the reality itself even after the existence is established, might be perceived by different people at different angles. These cannot be helped since every person might have their view of the existence. This is influenced by the individuals thought process and his faith. Multiple realities are acceptable as a mode to solve conflicts. Every person can have his or her own visualization of the reality and need not necessarily interfere with the other or force it on the other. To this extent, multiple realities may be accepted. However, no conflict resolution would solve the case of the reality. It is also to be noted that existence of reality has little or no impact on the normal survival of the human beings as of date.
Conclusion
Based on our discussions in the previous sections we could come to the following conclusions:
One reality or multiple realities, the information available today has little or no clear evidence to prove beyond doubt either of the cases. However, everyone can have their own version and they can co exist.
The true reality is difficult to perceive with the knowledge that mankind has today. More information and research is needed to identify and find the reality / realities in all its dimensions.
In his philosophical arguments, Rene Descartes aims to differentiate facts and beliefs as sources of knowledge among humans. Since facts and beliefs are hardly different, Descartes employs the concepts of skepticism, the evil demon, and God in resolving his doubts about reality and illusion. In the concept of skepticism, Descartes asserts that the reality of things lies in the fact that humans doubt their existence.
Regarding the evil demon, Descartes holds that humans are unable to perceive reality because a deceitful and all-powerful intelligence has programmed them to perceive mere beliefs as reality (Moore and Bruder 102). In the concept of God, Descartes asserts that God does not deceive and the act of doubting the existence of God proves his existence in the universe.
According to Thomas Hobbes, all objects form material because they are in a state of continuous change. In this case, Hobbes asserts that feelings, ideas, and thoughts comprise material that is in constant motion while transitioning from one state to another. Hobbes states that feelings, ideas, and thoughts fall into two categories, namely good and bad objects (Moore and Bruder 107). Pain and hatred are bad objects, while pleasure and desire are good objects. Thus, Hobbes argues that decisions that people make in their lives emanate from internal drives, which are dependent on good or bad objects.
As the basis of the representative realism theory, John Locke holds that ideas that humans uphold emanate from experiences in their lives. Hence, basing on experiences, humans perceive objects according to the reflections that they have in their minds.
For example, properties of an object such as color, size, and shape relate to other objects already seen, and thus, representation aspect of the theory becomes evident. Locke argues that the external attributes of any form of object usually represent the perceptions of the mind (Moore and Bruder 115). Hence, Lockes theory emphasizes that humans indirectly perceive objectives in the universe through representation with known objects.
Benedictus De Spinoza views God as everything in the universe because he is a substance rather than a religious being. Unlike Descartes, who views thoughts and extension as two unique properties of different substances that represent mind and matter respectively, Spinoza views them as properties of the same substance. Spinoza holds that God is everything in the universe as represented by substance in which extension and thought are the two attributes (Moore and Bruder 110). In this view, Spinoza does not regard the belief in the existence of religious gods because everything in the universe represents God.
According to Spinoza, free will is an illusion rather than a reality because occurrences in nature are subject to previous occurrences. In his argument, Spinoza argues that events are natural outcomes that influence state of substances. Since the laws of physics determine the state of substances in nature, Spinoza explains that they direct the occurrence of events and state of bodies according to previous occurrences (Moore and Bruder 111). Therefore, as Spinoza regard substance having both the mental and the material attributes, they determine the free will of bodies in nature.
According to Anne Conway, creatures comprise of substances, which fall in physical and mental realms. In elucidating the concept of monism, Conway asserts that all creatures have both mental and physical substances, which vary from one creature to another, depending on the will of the creator (Moore and Bruder 108). The individualism aspect of creatures emanates from the extent of physical and mental materials that they contain the creative power. Moreover, Conway holds that although substances vary from one body to another, they are reducible to small substances, which are irreducible.
Occasionalism version of epiphenomenalism describes the relationship between the mind and the body with God as the mediator. According to Moore and Bruder, followers of Descartes argue that God is a divine coordinator of mental events and physical events (105). Hence, when thoughts emerge in the mind, God translates them into physical actions that the body performs. Comparatively, parallelism version of epiphenomenalism also elucidates the relationship between mind and body as representatives of mental and physical substances respectively. Fundamentally, mental and physical events are parallel in that the occurrence of one is dependent on the other. As an act originates from the mind, the body coincidentally does what the mind dictates.
Olivia Sabuco holds that the body and the soul connect each other in the brain. According to her argument, the state of the brain determines the nature of the connection that exists between the mind and the soul. Sabuco likens the soul to God and asserts that it controls actions that the mind and the body undertake (Moore and Bruder 104). A human is a microcosm in that soul controls all the activities that are within it. Hence, since soul and brain connect each other, Sabuco affirms that there is an intimate connection of material and immaterial substances in nature.
George Berkeley asserts that the existence of sensible things is subject to the perception of the mind. This assertion implies that objects cannot exist unless the mind perceives their existence in nature. Berkeley states that the existence of sensible things is not subject to the human mind, but it is subject to the perceiving mind of God. Thus, in his explanation, Berkeley holds that an object exists because it is in the perceiving mind of God even though no human is able to perceive its existence in the universe (Moore and Bruder 118). Ultimately, Berkeley asserts that the existence of sensible things is subject to the Gods mind because he is omniscient.
Liebniz came up with the metaphysical concept of monads, which describes an activity as a compound that contains monads, nonphysical units that determine reality of objects. In this view, Liebniz views that monads are reality elements that emanate from the nonphysical components of activity. Moore and Bruder argue that monads are the definitive elements of reality that are indivisible and irreducible (112). Since monads are indivisible units, they exist as units of force in both physical and non-physical world. In nature, the indivisibility of monads exists because they represent units of force.
Concerning the induction, David Hume argues that it conforms to the principle of uniformity that guides human perception. In this view, Hume argues against induction and the principle of uniformity because they influence the perception of reality. David Hume asserts that the perception of something is dependent on the point of view of the perceiver. To describe how perception is subjective and based on experiences, Hume uses the concept of cause and effect in elucidating how individuals apply past and present experiences in perceiving objects and events (Moore and Bruder 134). Thus, Hume argues against cause and effect form of perception because it is mere supposition.
Immanuel Kant states that noumena are things that exist exterior to the human experience. Noumena are not the components of human experience because they do not determine the acquisition of knowledge. Kant states that noumenal things reside outside the sphere of experience and are beyond human knowledge (Moore and Bruder). Comparatively, phenomena are things that fall within the sphere of human experience, and thus, form the basis of human knowledge. The phenomenal things must have cause and effect relationships so that humans can derive knowledge from them.
Hegel argues that phenomenal things differ from noumenal things because humans are conscious objects. In opposition to the noumenal argument, Hegel asserts that the conscious ability of humans makes them to use immaterial objects, which are exterior to the material objects of experience (Moore and Bruder 138). Therefore, Hegel holds that humans have the capacity to perceive material and immaterial things in the universe and gain experience because they are conscious beings.
According to Schopenhauer, the idea of pessimism originates from the beliefs that humans hold about life. Schopenhauer states that humans are irrational in life because they have unquenchable desire and blind will that drive them to perform irrational activities (Moore and Bruder 494). The quest for knowledge among diverse beliefs complicates the perception of reality. Hence, Schopenhauer recommends that humans can overcome pessimism if only they can control their unquenchable desires and blind will.
Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and Ann Conway are philosophers, who have a reasonable view of metaphysics. Rene Descartes is a great proponent of dualism, a philosophical concept that recognizes the existence of the mind and the body. Thomas Hobbes dwells on the concept of materialism because he recognizes that objects exist in a continuum of change. Ann Conway is also a great philosopher, who ascribes to the concept of dualism as fronted by Rene Descartes.
Works Cited
Moore, Brooke, and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. California: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Strict and general application of the main Kantian assumption leads to the elimination of the Kantian-style metaphysics as well. The above counter argument by Loux leads to metaphysical skepticism. The other counter argument that can be used against Kantian-style objection leads to infinite regress. Kantians claim that while doing metaphysics we cannot study reality itself but only the concepts of it. But since we need a conceptual framework to be able to speak about reality, is it not the case that we need another conceptual framework to be able to approach the previous conceptual framework? And here comes the problem of consistency. Kantians need to be consistent and if they require a framework to approach the reality, there must be another framework for analyzing the framework used for reality. Therefore, Kantians cannot deny the possibility of traditional metaphysics and at the same time allow for a direct analysis of the conceptual framework. And hence, Kantian view seems to end up in an infinite regress.
I think the counter arguments are convincing and they properly show why the Kantians objections are wrong. But Is there a way out of skepticism and infinite regress? The third option is to defend dogmatism. Proponents of this solution would contend that there is a special sort of entities that metaphysicians are able to access without any problem. In a certain sense traditional metaphysics might be viewed as a form of dogmatism, it assumes that it is possible to study being as being. It seems, however, that dogmatism is precisely the view Kantians want to criticize. On the other hand, if they stated that the conceptual scheme is the special type of thing that could be studied directly they would seem to embrace the same attitude as a traditional metaphysician, only towards a different type of entity. But why should one accept that it is possible to study directly a conceptual framework but not the being as such? Kantians would need to supply an argument to show that it is possible to choose just their favorite option. Otherwise, their choice would be entirely ad hoc and in a sense.
In Conclusion, the criticisms of traditional metaphysics outlined in the second paragraph seem to be based on the Kantian view that we cannot learn about the being as such because we must apply our conceptual schemes to its study. Nevertheless, the Kantian approach to metaphysics suffers from a similar problem. If we cannot get to reality as such, either we cannot know the genuine nature of the conceptual scheme or we are able to learn only how the scheme could be seen from the point of view of another conceptual scheme. In each case we lack the pure and final metaphysical knowledge we allegedly looked for. All these problems, however, do not necessarily force us to abandon metaphysics as such. The only thing we should dismiss is the uncritical attitude. In case we realize that the metaphysical knowledge is revisable and not certain, we may engage in doing modest but viable critical metaphysics.
Metaphysics merely means ‘after’ in Latin, ergo it came after Aristotle’s writings on physics. It attempts to define the nature of all reality, tangible or intangible. It begs for us to describe the basic and sometimes indescribable human existence. The origin of Philosophy is to ponder our existence, Metaphysics strives to understand the human condition. Where Realism claims that “time and space have existence independent from the human mind” SOURCE, metaphysics weds the two, as it is a combination of the mind, body, and soul.
Simic’s approach to the metaphysical is steeped in the realism, however, he uses thoughts and feelings to define and convey his humanity, mind, and body this cultural lens makes his works unique.
Charles Simic was birthed into this world on May 9, 1938, in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, where he survived a horrendous adolescence amid World War II. In 1954, he emigrated from Yugoslavia with his mom and sibling to join his dad in Chicago, IL. He lived in and around Chicago until 1958. In 1961, he was drafted into the U.S. Armed force, and in 1966 he earned his college degree from New York University while working nights to take care of the expense. SOURCE
I choose Simic because I like poetry, it is a distillation of thought and emotion.
Simic is an exemplar of metaphysics as he mixes the complexity of existence (‘time and space’) with his humanity. His unique perspective originates from his experiences and tempers his lens both intrinsically and extrinsically. He has seen what war does to humanity and been left alone to ingrate those experiences into words that demonstrate its strange and brutal concept.
In his poem “All These Mirrors” he is conversing with himself in a mirror while shaving, the reflection is disagreeable and disgruntled, he is being self-depreciating about getting older. He is struggling to understand the image that is himself, but older. The second stanza of this poem draws in my humanity. He is alone, shaving in the mirror, he is noticing the lines in his forehead and waiting for an answer to a self-thought question he will never get the answer to. His attention to the mundane act of the ordinary where there is tissue paper on the ready when you cut yourself demonstrates his ability to move forward without the answer. As he is actualized about a future event and planning for it.
“The razor is at your throat.
The lines are inscribing themselves
On your forehead as you listen closely
With a poultice of tissue paper
Already reddening under your left eye.”
In another poem ‘Hotel Insomnia’ Simic writes as if in a dream, he again renders an acute minuscule attention of his thoughts to detail the ordinary. I can see the woman who lives above him, the two have an intimate relationship without having to know the other. If you have ever lived above or below someone you know things about them that are intimate. Where is the metaphysics in knowing someone’s routine? He understands that he exists as his neighbor goes to pee, it is this act that he uses to express his existence.
“At 5 A. M.
the sound of bare feet upstairs.
The ‘Gypsy’ fortuneteller,
Whose storefront is on the corner,
Going to pee after a night of love.”
The play on language in this somber poem portrays Simic’s eye for detail, as in the way the spider keeps going admits adversity “in heavy overcoat” and “cigarette smoke” handles everyday life. If someone is struggling with something it is often described as ‘heavy” here the spider champions over adversity, yet another example of metaphysics.
“Mostly, though, it was quiet.
Each room with its spider in heavy overcoat
Catching his fly with a web
Of cigarette smoke and revery.”
In Simic’s 1996 poem, mirrors 4am, he makes himself relatable in the poem when again depicting a mirror and that he contemplates without an image or witness. He creates a relationship between an empty room and the mirror, these lines are private thoughts on an inanimate object, the mirror brought to life by the observer. I think that it is metaphysic personified when writes:
“Sneak a view of their emptiness
Without them catching
A glimpse of you in return.” Mirrors at 4 a.m. – 1996
He is commenting that if it is not seen, it does not exist. The crux of metaphysics is exactly this – a tangible object that may or may not have an existence without an observer or an observer’s thoughts.
I liked Charles Simic’s poems. It would be great to witness a conversation between and Simic and Kant. Kant would have liked Simic, Why? Simic portrayed the elements of both the Critique Of Pure Reason and the Transcendental Dialectic. He lives in the pocket of metaphysics and is comfortable with who he is and how he moves through the world.