Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
PHIL 250 – Epistemology & Metaphysics
Introducing Metaphysics
Let us begin our introduction to this portion
of the course by considering two uses of the
term ‘metaphysics’…
1
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Two understandings of ‘metaphysics’:
Popular Metaphysics studies issues such
as:
 Reincarnation/Past lives
 Out of body experiences
 Mysticism
 Magic
 Etc.
This discipline is:
 Not particularly wedded to contemporary
empirical sciences.
 Usually involves speculation.
 Almost equivalent to ‘spiritual’ or
‘supernatural’.
2
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Philosophical Metaphysics is different.
 Aims to construct theories or viewpoints
based on logic, rigour, and reason.
 Tries not to contradict scientific results.
From now on, ‘metaphysics’ will be taken to
mean ‘philosophical metaphysics’.
So, philosophical metaphysicians construct
accounts or theories.
 What are these theories for/of/about?
3
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Metaphysical motives
Metaphysics is driven by the following kind
of question:
What is the most basic set of categories
under which existents fall?
 Which categories are necessary for an
adequate understanding of reality?
 Which ones will suffice for such an
understanding?
In other words, we want to figure out the
most fundamental features of the world.
 Note: we don’t try to do this all at once;
rather, we break down our efforts.
4
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Metaphysical questions
For example, we might want to ask about
the causal structure of the world:
 Is causation a relation between events,
objects, properties, or what?
To answer this we need to know whether
the world contains events as well as
objects.
 I.e. is ‘event’ a basic category under
which entities fall.
Or, we might ask about the nature of
persons:
 Are we just bodies, or are we bodies +
minds?
 To answer this we need to know
whether ‘mind’ is a basic category under
which entities fall.
 I.e. are there minds as well as bodies?
5
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Metaphysical questions
We expect that by determining which
categories of entities exist, we shall also
uncover enlightening perspectives on the
nature of those entities.
For instance, we don’t just ask whether
there are events as well as objects.
 We also ask what the difference is
between them, how the two categories
are related, etc.
We don’t just ask whether the universe
contains minds as well as bodies
 We also ask: what is the difference
between minds and bodies, how are
they related, can one exist without the
other, etc.?
We might also ask about the nature of
space and time, abstract entities, the
foundations of physical theories, and much
more.
6
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Investigating reality
We can summarize metaphysics by stating
that it asks the following two questions:
 What (in general) exists?
 What is the nature of that which exists?
This understanding of metaphysics is often
called ‘ontology’, which means the study of
being (or existence).
7
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Generality
One aspect of metaphysics that you have
probably picked up on is its generality.
Metaphysicians do not ask questions such
as:
 How many polar bears are there in
Canada?
 That is a question for wildlife managers.
Metaphysicians don’t ask:
 How many species of bear exist? How
many species of animal exist?
 These are questions for biologists.
Metaphysicians don’t ask:
 What causes a cold? What causes
black holes?
 That is a question for doctors/physicists.
A metaphysician will ask: what is the nature
of causation?
8
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
More on generality
The generality of metaphysics is supposed
to be fundamental, basic, ultimate.
We might restrict ourselves to the
metaphysics of causation, time, persons,
objects, etc.
 These are fundamental aspects of
reality.
 We don’t restrict ourselves to particular
places, times, people, etc.
Metaphysical theses are also meant to be
taken literally.
 We often speak metaphorically, e.g. ‘the
sun is rising’; ‘the car doesn’t want to
start this morning’; etc.
 These must be reinterpreted before they
can be part of a metaphysical theory.
9
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Ontology
For this reason, metaphysics cannot be
done by perusing an encyclopedia, which
tells us a great deal about what exists.
For example, you might find articles on the
cause(s) of the Second World War.
 You will not find articles on the nature of
causation in general (if you do, it’s likely
a philosophical article).
 For that we turn to metaphysics.
10
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
The metaphysical and the empirical
In short, metaphysics is not an empirical
discipline. It is not the gathering of facts
and information from various sources.
That, however, leaves metaphysics with the
appearance of mystery.
 After all, it supposedly tells us about the
world—it uncovers the basic categories
and nature of existing entities.
 Yet, it isn’t empirical—it doesn’t depend
on experiments or scientific observation.
How is such an enterprise possible?
11
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Against metaphysics
You have probably encountered a
philosophical movement known as
‘empiricism’.
 Empiricists argue that all knowledge
must be derived from sensory
observations.
 Anything that goes beyond the senses is
illegitimate (nonsense).
 Hence, empiricists tend to conclude that
metaphysics is impossible.
In the 20th Century, logical positivists took
up the empiricist position and argued that
only what is verifiable empirically has
meaning.
 Hence, metaphysics is to be replaced by
science.
 Toward the end of this course, we shall
examine such criticisms.
In the meantime, let us examine another
perspective on metaphysics.
12
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Rationalism
Empiricism stands in contrast to rationalism,
which argues that (at least some)
knowledge rests on non-empirical grounds.
Think, for example, of mathematics.
Consider the following proposition:
 All even numbers are divisible by two.
This seems as certain as anything; almost
impossible to doubt. Yet, we haven’t
confirmed it by checking every even
number. That is impossible.
 Hence, the rationalist might argue, we
can know certain propositions to be true
without empirically verifying them.
How could this be?
13
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
The tradition of philosophical ‘analysis’
In the lat 1800’s and early 1900’s, the
discipline of formal logic was developed.
 It allowed us to study systems of
inference or reasoning in great detail.
This movement was driven by philosophers
such as Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein,
Moore, Carnap and Quine.
Russell in particular made an interesting
observation:
 A great deal of common, uncontroversial
and obviously valid reasoning can be
explained if we assume that our
language has an underlying logical
structure.
 By appealing to this structure we can
make sense of, and shed light on, the
nature of reason.
14
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Language, logic and reason
It was once thought that every meaningful
proposition that we can express must have
a subject—an entity—that it is about, and
must attribute something (a predicate) to
that subject. E.g.:
 If I say ‘Fred is happy’, then I express a
proposition that is about Fred and
attributes happiness to him.
 If I say, ‘dogs are mammals’, my
proposition is about dogs.
 Etc.
It was thought that if a sentence weren’t
about a particular entity, it would be
meaningless.
Hence, in virtue of using language/thought
meaningfully, we commit ourselves to the
existence of entities that are the subjects of
our expressions/thoughts.
15
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Definite descriptions
But now consider the following sentence:
‘the present king of France is bald’.
 Russell argued that this is a meaningful
sentence, but since France no longer
has a king, it cannot be about a
particular person.
 So, the subject-predicate theory is
wrong.
Hence, in using this phrase we must not be
committing ourselves to any particular
subject.
Russell showed how the correct logical
analysis of the proposition expressed by
‘the present king of France is bald’ makes
this clear.
Hence, Russell concluded that our language
contains a logical structure that can be
uncovered by analysis.
16
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Analytic philosophy
This was a key part of the impetus behind
what came to be known as ‘analytic
philosophy’. The basic idea is as follows.
We consider propositions that are too
obvious to be doubted.
 E.g.: if John is happy, then someone is
happy.
We then reconstruct those propositions to
highlight their logical structure.
We know we’ve done this well when the
logical analysis captures the original
features (entailments) of the proposition.
This analysis will tell us what we are
ontologically committed to in virtue of the
logical structure of our language.
Since the original propositions are too
obvious to be doubted, we must accept
these commitments.
17
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Logic and ontology
In short, we use a logical analysis of claims
to uncover what we ontologically commit
ourselves to in virtue of accepting those
claims.
 We can, of course, deny those claims
rather than accept the commitments.
 In many cases, however, such a denial
is far less plausible than the
commitments.
Also, we try to do this in a way that does not
conflict with well-established scientific
results or theories.
 Since, however, such an analysis
provides a very general form of
commitment, there is hope that science
and metaphysics can co-exist.
 For example, perhaps metaphysics
provides the general categories; science
provides the content for those
categories.
18
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Disputes continue
Despite the popularity of the analytical
approach to philosophy, disputes in
metaphysics were not settled once and for
all.
Let us look at an example of the method,
and the disagreements that might follow…
19
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
A metaphysical problem: universals
‘Strawberries and raspberries have
something in common; they are both red.’
This does not seem to be a startling or
controversial claim. But if we mean it
literally, then it seems we must believe that
there is (exists) something that these two
fruit share: redness.
The usual term for something that unites
particular objects is a property or a
universal.
So, our common speech commits us to the
existence of properties, i.e. things that
different objects can each have.
Does this settle the matter? Hardly…
20
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Some responses
Platonist: universals exist and are shared by
objects.
Nominalist: everything is concrete, all that
different pieces of fruit share is our use of
the word ‘red’.
Since, however, our everyday speech
seems to commit us to redness, the
nominalist has some work to do.
 In particular, she will likely argue that we
can paraphrase the original expression
so that it doesn’t contain any
commitment to universals.
21
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Metaphysics and paraphrase
Imagine a materialist (Bob) who believes
that only matter exists.
Bob says: Jane has a strong will.
Jill: A-ha, Bob! You believe that people
have wills, but wills are not made up of
matter, so you aren’t a materialist after all.
Bob: I was just speaking loosely. All I
meant to say was, ‘Jane will resist most
suggestions you give her. If I say, “do this”
she normally replies “no”. My use of “will”
just summarizes this pattern. All that exists
is atoms, including those that vibrate to
make sound’.
Paraphrase is a common metaphysical
technique. I.e., we argue that we are only
apparently committed to the existence of
something.
22
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Ontological commitments
If you deny that there exist any X’s, but you
can’t paraphrase commitment to X’s out of
your language, then it seems that your
resistance to X’s is ungrounded (unless you
are willing to change other beliefs you hold).
If, however, you can paraphrase away
commitment to X’s, there is still ground for
dispute:
 Should we accept the paraphrase?
 If so, why?
 How are we to decide such issues?
 What is the evidence we use?
Getting a grip on questions such as these is
a big part of what metaphysics is about.
23
Joshua Mozersky, Queen’s University
Introducing Metaphysics
Why study metaphysics?
In sum, metaphysics is the study of the
most general features of reality.
 It is the attempt to use reason to
uncover the fundamental structure of the
world.
 It is general enough that scientific
results can be accommodated.
Since a great deal of the humanistic
enterprise is to understand our place in the
universe, metaphysics is a central
component of the humanities.
Still metaphysics remains controversial, so I
hope you will agree that it is a topic well
worth studying.
24