Metaphysics?

[SalixIncendium]

I was thinking there could be a distinction between reality as it exists for you and as you experience it, and reality as it exists for others and as they experience it, and reality as it exists independently of anyone (if that is even possible)

I thought that would be an interesting avenue and that "Transactional Reality" sounds like a type of reality, a sense in which reality can be understood - which lead me to think there could be other types of reality apart from that which one experiences, hence "non-transactional reality"

I recognize transactional reality (vyavaharika) and Absolute reality (Paramartika). As I alluded to above, transactional reality is an appearance in Absolute reality, just as one's dream reality is an appearance in transactional reality.

 

[crossfire]

I don"t think the Buddha was concerned overly with it; seeing it as unhelpful to ethical questions and the compassionate path to liberation. Later Buddhism, as a result of it interacting with Chinese philosophy, became more concerned with metaphysical questions.

12 linked chain of causality is metaphysics, as is Buddha's view of the elements (fire, wind, earth, water, space) making up the body.

 

[Eddi]

I recognize transactional reality (vyavaharika) and Absolute reality (Paramartika). As I alluded to above, transactional reality is an appearance in Absolute reality, just as one's dream reality is an appearance in transactional reality.

Thank you, I have bookmarked your post and will be sure to look into those things you have mentioned in much greater detail at some point before Christmas, I have quite a backlog from the past couple of days!

 

[mangalavara]

What do people think about Metaphysics?

My view is that all individuals have metaphysical beliefs. An individual may be very aware of them, or they may just be in the back of an individual’s mind.

How does your tradition, religion, or belief system use Metaphysics? What role do they play for you?

Lately, I have been reading about Javanese Śaivism. In that particular tradition, metaphysics (tattva) is one of three disciplines that lead to moksha or liberation from the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. Metaphysics gives rise to ethics (śīla), and both of them give rise to religion (dharma).

 

[vulcanlogician]

OK, I will edit the OP once again to include @The Hammer 's third definition

You ain't gotta do all that. But let's do it:

Hammer's third definition:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

I think this is a poor definition of metaphysics, although it does capture some of the best criticisms of the idea of metaphysics.

Like, why should we care about it in the first place. Isn't it a bunch of vaporous bull****?

 

[The Hammer]

Mostly the third to be honest

But the others too!

I've always used the first definition when discussing metaphysics.

 

[Quintessence]

I've always used the first definition when discussing metaphysics.

Well, the third is true of the first so in a sense they dovetail into one another. You have to start with a priori speculations (what I usually will call "foundational assumptions" or "axiomatic assumptions") about the nature of reality in order to really get anywhere with anything.

With respect to the question in the opening post, when I was first building out a religious tradition I consider having a strong metaphysical foundation absolutely essential. A failure to consider metaphysical assumptions was a major peeve of mine when I was first exploring contemporary Paganism. I was a science-minded STEM major - "it just works" was not going to cut it for me. Correspondence tables in particular drove me up the wall because their creators never explained why they were the way they were. It was just splatted on the page and expected to be taken on blind faith. Nah, pal, not happening. On the plus side, those frustrations led me to study philosophy on my own. If Pagan authors weren't going to be transparent about their a priori metaphysical assumptions, I would research it myself and make up my own mind about everything (par for the course with me, really). These days I don't have as much of a "prove it" stick up my rear but I still find knowing and understanding axiomatic assumptions to be essential not just to knowing one's own ways, but those of others.

 

[osgart]

What's wrong with the standard definition?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. It includes the first principles of being, identity, change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility.

From that definition I think everyone has a metaphysical outlook on reality.

It's not only about evidence, but what can be inferred from evidence beyond the behaviours, and properties of the evidence. Even a hard core physicalist who sees nothing beyond what evidence reveals in and of itself, they are still doing metaphysics.

 

[vulcanlogician]

 

[RestlessSoul]

You ain't gotta do all that. But let's do it:

Hammer's third definition:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

I think this is a poor definition of metaphysics, although it does capture some of the best criticisms of the idea of metaphysics.

Like, why should we care about it in the first place. Isn't it a bunch of vaporous bull****?

Aha. Scientists care about metaphysics when they want their laws and theories to go beyond making predictions based on observed regularities in nature; for physics to fulfil the ambition of Einstein and Hawking to provide a full explanation of the material world, it requires a metaphysics.

Newton’s law of gravitation measures the effect of gravity. But once you begin asking what is gravity, what is entropy, what are space and time?, you’re into the realm of metaphysics.

 

[PureX]

"Meta" refers to the cognitive lens through which we perceive and understand our experience of (and interactions with) reality. For religious people, this lens is often shaped by religious ideology. For the 'scientism' crowd it is clearly shaped by scientific ideology. For the pragmatists among us it is shaped by past experiences in pursuit of their needs and desires. And so on.

Metaphysics is really a meta-cognitive paradigm through which we recognize ourselves within our world. And particularly as it pertains to essence, and origins.

 

[Eddi]

I've always used the first definition when discussing metaphysics.

Do you have any thoughts as to the third definition?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Aha. Scientists care about metaphysics when they want their laws and theories to go beyond making predictions based on observed regularities in nature; for physics to fulfil the ambition of Einstein and Hawking to provide a full explanation of the material world, it requires a metaphysics.

Newton’s law of gravitation measures the effect of gravity. But once you begin asking what is gravity, what is entropy, what are space and time?, you’re into the realm of metaphysics.

That's true. But scientists don't tend to bother what something "is" apart from its explanatory power in an observation. Once those kinds of questions are answered, the scientist is typically satisfied.

Not so with philosophers. We want to know the essence or ontology of a thing. We're kinda weirdos that way.

Time is a great example. Scientists are content knowing how time explains things in the universe. But they don't tend to ask things like "What IS time?" (unless they have their philosopher's hats on, that is.)

It's interesting though how some scientific questions are philosophical questions and vice versa. You find it in cosmology a lot. Cosmologists often want to come to some "universal statement" or "fundamental fact" about existence.

Science is WAY better at giving us definite answers to these questions (when such answers are available). But philosophers (imho) are good at rooting out the problem in our understanding, and discovering what the essential questions really are. The latter may seem less useful than the former. But I say they're both useful.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I beg the question, why not answer metaphysical questions like why we're here and how did it all get here and where is it going with science? Religions were created with the science of the day, answering those questions as best as they liked.

 

[MikeF]

Like, why should we care about it in the first place. Isn't it a bunch of vaporous bull****?

In my hubristic opinion , yes.

 

[MikeF]

What do people think about Metaphysics?

How does your tradition, religion, or belief system use Metaphysics? What role do they play for you?

I am especially interested in Metaphysics as in the "a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment"

In my view, metaphysics, like much of the rest of philosophy is mired in human fallibility and therefore is wholly incapable of adequately addressing the questions it sets before itself.

Questions regarding reality or the mind are clearly questions that fall within the realm of science.

 

[vulcanlogician]

In my view, metaphysics, like much of the rest of philosophy is mired in human fallibility and therefore is wholly incapable of adequately addressing the questions it sets before itself.

Questions regarding reality or the mind are clearly questions that fall within the realm of science.

Any truth claim is "mired" in fallibility, whether we're talking philosophy or science. None of Newton's claims were infallible. In fact, we've found many of them have been found to be technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean they aren't valuable. I think if you accept the same about philosophy or metaphysics, you'll see that it is just as valuable as Newton sometimes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do people think about Metaphysics?

It's beyond me.

 

[MikeF]

Any truth claim is "mired" in fallibility, whether we're talking philosophy or science. None of Newton's claims were infallible. In fact, we've found many of them have been found to be technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean they aren't valuable. I think if you accept the same about philosophy or metaphysics, you'll see that it is just as valuable as Newton sometimes.

Of course valuableness can be viewed in completely subjective terms, and as such, anything may have value to someone.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Sure. Very opinionated scientists think that F=MA.