To: WVCNC Students, Humanities 101
Hoover, Metaphysics, July 28, 2011, Page 1
To:WVC Omak Students, HUMN& 101
From:RC Hoover, Instructor, HUMN& 101
Date:July 28, 2011
Subject:Metaphysics, Introduction and Outline
INTRODUCTION: Discovering One's Own 'Metaphysics.'
Physics addresses questions like "How does gravity work?" Physics helps us understand what we see in the Natural World around us.
Metaphysics addresses questions like "Why do humans value freedom?" Metaphysics helps us understand ourselves, especially where our ideas come from and how our ideas fit together.
I consider Metaphysics to have five branches: Epistemology, Ontology, Theology, Anthropology, and Ethics.
Epistemology examines the origin and reliability of knowledge; epistemology addresses the question "How do we 'know'?"
Ontology examines the nature and kinds of existence; ontology addresses the question "What is real?"
Theology examines religious systems; theology addresses the question "What lies behind/beyond objective reality?"
Anthropology examines Human Nature; anthropology addresses the question "Can Human Nature be defined?"
Ethics examines the value of what we think and what we do; ethics addresses the question "What is best?"
You have answers to each of these metaphysical questions, even if you cannot write those answers on a piece of paper. Understanding something about Metaphysics can help you better understand your own answers, and, therefore, help you better understand yourself.
OUTLINE: The Branches of Metaphysics
Epistemology: "How do we 'know'?"
Observation (experience)
Sensory phenomena (seeing, hearing, touching, etc.)
Accepted as "valid" if confirmed by reason or testimony, otherwise rejected as "illusion" (mirage, hallucination, hypochondria)
Reason (cognition)
Intellectual operation (a+b=c a=1 b=2 c=?)
Accepted as "valid" if confirmed by observation or testimony, otherwise rejected as "speculation"
Testimony (in court, textbooks, used-car salesmen, memory)
Information from others (an earlier self?) about something neither experienced nor reasoned
Accepted as "valid" if witness has credibility, otherwise rejected as "mere opinion" or "falsehood"
Other (inspiration/intuition/clairvoyance/second sight)
Sense of the unobserved, unreasoned, and unreported, which is yet compellingly known (sense of impending danger)
Accepted as "valid" if and only if confirmed by both observation and reason, otherwise rejected as "mysticism"
Ontology:"What is real?" (Note: a good starting point is the tradition that something is real if we should react to it)
Each type of reality has its own pattern of operation; these patterns resemble one another, but are not identical (flowers, friendships, and the future do not "grow" in the same way)
Objective
Matter (water, air, a flower)
Energy (sunlight, fire, pressure)
Subjective
Feelings (love, fear, remorse)
Ideas (freedom, respect, duty)
Potential
The future (after class, next weekend, when I ______)
The unseen (see Theology, below)
Theology:"What lies behind/beyond objective reality?"
What lies behind/beyond objective reality? Nothing! (Radical materialism)
Nothing lies behind/beyond objective reality, because objective reality is the only reality (everything is cause and effect operating on matter and energy without influence from mysterious or mystical forces: Naturalism)
Nothing lies behind/beyond objective reality, and that's okay (Nihilism)
Nothing lies behind/beyond objective reality, and that's NOT okay (Existentialism)
What lies behind/beyond objective reality? Something . . .
But knowledge of what lies behind/beyond objective reality is not reliable . . .
Something might be there, but, if there is, it is so different from what we know that we cannot understand it (philosophical agnosticism)
I do not know what is there, at least not yet (agnosticism)
First, scientifically reliable knowledge is based on rigorous observation of "objective reality;" second, Theology addresses a realm "behind/beyond objective reality"; therefore, logically, science cannot develop reliable knowledge about "What lies behind/beyond objective reality"; so, science is unable to support or refute the extra-material claims of Theology (Scientific Naturalism)
And knowledge of what lies behind/beyond objective reality is reliable; in fact we can know . . .
Everything about of what lies behind/beyond objective reality: radical spiritism or spiritualism (popular circa 1840-1930: Ouija boards, séances, etc.)
Something about of what lies behind/beyond objective reality, specifically we know that . . .
What lies behind/beyond objective reality includes a number of diverse spirits
Many are spirits with personalities (human [including the dead], near human, not-so-human, good, neutral, evil: spiritism (see radical spiritism, above)
Many of these spirits can and should be associated with animals, objects, and places (animism, found in many Native American traditions and in Japanese Shinto)
All things are one divine substance: pantheism
Transcendentalism: (Ralph Waldo Emerson) when one does not experience nature, one will suffer spiritual distress and psychic damage
Hinduism: karma; reincarnation; caste system; the Vedas; Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer) are metaphors representing aspects of the all-divine (Brahman), not actual divine persons
Buddhism: offshoot of Hinduism; primary teachings are found in the Tripitaka (Sanskrit for "Three Baskets"): Vinaya Pitaka (the "Rules of Discipline"), Sutra Pitaka ("Buddha's Teachings and Sermons"), and Abhidharma Pitaka ("Further Doctrine")
Many gods exist: polytheism
Greek pantheon: Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc.
Norse pantheon: Odin, Thor, Freya, etc.
One God exists: monotheism
Judaism (Moses, Torah, Hasidic, Orthodox, Reform)
Christianity (Paul, Holy Bible; Coptic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant)
Islam (Mohammed, Qur'an; Sunni, Shi‘a, Sufi)
Deism (Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson)
God does not exist: atheism (Bertrand Russell, Madeline Murray O'Hare; see also Naturalism, noted above)
One's metaphysical assumptions about theology determine one's view of luck, fate, and magic (see handout "Magic")
Anthropology: "Can Human Nature be defined?"
No, humans have no clearly defined nature
Yes, individual humans have a clearly defined Nature . . .
. . . and Human Nature is innate
Innately good (Rousseau)
Innately bad (Glaucon, Machiavelli)
Innately mixed (Schaeffer)
Innately neutral (Locke)
. . . and Human Nature is a product of particular influences
Fate (one's nature is determined by the gods, the stars, etc.)
Free will (one's nature is determined by one's own choices)
Experience ("nurture" side of nature/nurture argument)
Biology ("nature" side of nature/nurture argument)
. . . and Human Nature is a combination of both "innate quality" and "particular influences"
. . . and Human Nature remains neutral, but is labeled in various ways by various others
Yes, as a group, humans have a clearly defined Nature . . .
. . . and something within us pushes us toward our fate, for example
Humanity's continuing social and biological evolution pushes us towards successful adaptation to our social/physical environment
Humanity's warlike nature pushes us towards nuclear self destruction
. . . and something outside us pulls us toward our fate, for example
Karma will ordain our future (Bhagavad-Gita)
God has ordained a Judgment Day (Holy Bible)
The Historical Dialectic will result in utopian communism (Das Kapital)
. . . and that nature is best understood in terms of Cycles (human organization follows a pattern), for example
Human organization centers first on the self, then on the clan, then on the tribe, then on the nation, then repeats, centering on the self, then on the clan, then on the tribe, then on the nation . . .
Civilization overcomes barbarism, then barbarism overcomes civilization, then civilization . . . (The Beer Theory)
. . . and there are Other Possibilities, for example
Neither "Human Nature" nor destiny can dominate us (free will, freedom, self-determination)
It all depends on the environment (Skinner)
If Human Nature can be defined, is it consistent?
No, Human Nature is not consistent
. . . and people change at random
. . . and people change for clear reasons
Internal reasons
Conscious, informed choice (Free Will)
Emotional reasons (love, bitterness, "growing up," etc.)
Spiritual reasons (finding/losing faith, etc.)
External reasons
Tragedy
Chemical influence (drugs, nutrition, etc.)
Other (presence or absence of "support," etc.)
Yes, Human Nature is consistent; specifically . . .
. . . Human Nature is consistent across time within the individual (people never really change)
The four humours: Sanguine (Air), Choleric (Fire), Melancholic (Earth), Phlegmatic (Water)
The twelve signs of the Zodiac
Birth Order
Other (question to students: any suggestions?)
. . . Human Nature is consistent within specific Groups
Involuntary groups
Family/clan/tribe/cast (Kennedy = rich liberal; Bush = rich conservative)
Gender (men are all the same; women are all the same)
To understand men, one should consider money, ideology, conscience, and ego (MICE)
To understand women, one should consider security, ego, and attitude (SEA)
Culture/socioeconomic stratum (the rich are selfish; the poor are dirty)
Aesthetic appeal (ugly = worthless; beauty = worthy: high school)
Ethnicity (Jews cause our problems: Nazi Germany)
Age (old people are weak)
Voluntary groups
Social (sorority girls are stuck up)
Professional (lawyers are dishonest)
Political (Democrats are liberal big-spending wimps; Republicans are conservative heartless warmongers)
Religious (Puritans were intolerant prudes)
. . . Human Nature is Universal (group membership does not matter: people are the same everywhere, always have been, always will be)
Ethics: "What is best?" the beautiful, the true, and the good.
"What is beautiful?" (Aesthetics)
Can we distinguish the "beautiful" from the "ugly"?
Yes, beauty is as real as justice is (humans innately sense its presence and its absence)
No, all answers are subjective and probably self-serving
Why do we call something or someone "beautiful"?
Our sojourn in the Realm of the Ideal (Plato)
Cultural norms
Peer pressure
Personal taste
Evolutionary advantage
"What is true?" (Logic and Rhetoric)
Can we tell whether or not a statement is "true"?
No, we cannot tell when a statement is true:
Radical skepticism: "truth" does not exist; all who claim that something is "true" are either deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive others
Implications: difficult to deceive, but increases risk for feeling adrift in a meaningless universe
Policy: recommendations focus on short term solutions promoted in terms of self-interest
Yes, we can tell when a statement is true, because truth exists, and we know how "truth" works
Foundationalism: "the truth is out there"; reason and experience lead us ever closer to objective truth; intuition is valuable when it moves reason and experience in new directions
Implications: if I see X as true, then you should, too
Policy: recommendations tend to be rigid, promoted in terms of scientific certainties and/or moral absolutes
Radical positivism: "it only counts if we can quantify it"; basis for traditional Western scientific inquiry (see Naturalism, note above)
Implications: powerful tool for addressing objective reality
Policy: recommendations dismiss the subjective or the potential as irrelevant or unknowable, promoted in terms of "studies show . . ."
Anti foundationalism: "truth is a cultural artifact"; no truth exists objectively; all so called truth hinges on a cultural/historical/linguistic context
Implications: often suspicious of Foundationalism and Radical positivism
Policy: recommendations emphasize cultural context, promoted in terms of "cultural awareness"
Individualism: "the self is the first, best, and final judge of truth"
Implications: resists use of "truth" as a tool of control
Policy: recommendations tend to be based on "that's what I think" or "it works for me"
Limited Divine Inspiration: "God speaks truth to us"--knowledge not limited by any of the above forms
Implications: any of the above form of truth are subject to being supplemented by God (or gods) providing information (info verifiable to x degree) directly to someone (that one credible to x degree)--consensus on verifiability and credibility sometimes firm, sometimes elusive
Policy: recommendations tend to be based on "The Word of God" which must then be understood and applied by people--with varied historical results (good and bad by modern tastes), as per India, Meso-America, the Middle East, Medieval Europe, modern Iran, etc.
Does "truth" matter?
No, truth does not matter . . .
Because "truth" does not exist (skepticism)
Because "truth" is only relative (anti foundationalism or individualism)
Yes, truth does matter because "truth" is the key to reality (foundationalism, radical positivism, and limited divine inspiration)
"What is good?" (Morality)
Satisfying answers to the question "What is good?" can be based on tradition, for example
"That's how we did it in my family"
"It works for me"
Ten Commandments: no other gods; no idols; no blasphemy; keep Sabbath; honor parents; no murder; no adultery; no stealing; no lying; no jealousy
Seven deadly sins: pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust
Seven cardinal virtues: faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance
Fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control
Four qualities of the warrior: courage, fortitude, wisdom, generosity
Four noble truths: life is filled with pain; pain is caused by the need to possess; there is a way out of pain; that way is the eightfold path
Eightfold path: right views; right intentions; right speech; right conduct; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; right concentration
Satisfying answers to the question "What is good?" can be based on careful thought, recognizing that the question "What is good?" focuses both on the individual and on the group
When focusing on the individual, a moral system (a set of related answers to the question "What is good?") addresses two circumstances: normal and special
When a moral system focus on the individual under normal circumstances, it answers questions concerning
Rights (should you be free to leave if you want?)
Responsibilities (under what circumstances do you have a responsibility to stay? to go?)
Proper privileges (if you stay, what should and what shouldn't you be granted for staying?)
When a moral system focuses on the individual under special circumstances, it answers the questions
When should one give/receive praise?
When should one give/receive reproach?
When focusing on the group, a moral system addresses normal circumstances and special circumstances
When a moral system focuses on the group under normal circumstances, it answers questions concerning
Justice (what are the rules? are the rules fair? do they apply here? should the rules change? who has the right to answer these questions?)
Equity (does everyone have "enough"? what is "enough"? does anyone have "too much"? what is "too much"? who has the right to answer these questions?)
Liberty (should the group allow members to do this? should the group create rules governing this? who has the right to answer these questions?)
Peace (a condition which exists when the group has reached a stable, freely-chosen consensus on the answers to questions of Justice, Equity, and Liberty)
When a moral system focuses on the group under special circumstances, it answers the questions
What is (un)acceptable or (dis)honorable?
During conflict? (Domestic dispute? Legal dispute? Riot? War?)
When "others" are among us? (Guests? Intruders?)
When/how should we celebrate?
Discussion of moral questions often fails to produce satisfying answers
Several factors contribute to this failure
Casting moral questions in terms of "harm"
Failing to clarify exactly what we mean by "harm"
Allowing the discussion of "who suffers harm" to vacillate between "the individual" and "the group"
Such failure impedes the development of useful answers, but this failure obscures the fact that our manner of addressing moral questions is an improvement over the two primary alternatives: tradition and the strong
Answers from tradition have had difficulty adjusting to changes in the environment (physical or social)
Answers from the strong have had difficulty addressing the concerns of the weak (both individuals and groups)
If one claims the right to answer a moral question, and if one cannot provide satisfying answers to the questions below, then one's claim to "moral authority" is ill-founded
Questions about the nature of ethics
Why does a satisfying answer come from "ethics" rather than from science or whim?
What sort of ethical answer really satisfies the questioner?
Questions about the nature of the relevant circumstances
What does one need to know about the situation to provide a satisfying answer?
Does the one attempting to answer know this?
Questions about Human Nature itself
Why do we hunger for answers?
What do we do with the answers when they get them?
QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH METAPHYSICS
1. Which branch of metaphysics interests you the most? Why?
2. Identify, by line numbers, three statements in the OUTLINE which come close to expressing your own views? Why these statements and not others?
3. Do you, and those with whom you converse, truly understand one another when you discuss the issues raised in the OUTLINE?
a. Do you need to understand your ideas before you can discuss these issues? If so, why?
b. Is it in discussing these issues that you come to understand your ideas? If so, why?
RCH (with thanks to GVH, LAW, JRW, and KJ)