# "There is no such thing as metaphysics." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825 "2006-02-23T18:22:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/1 "2006-02-23T18:22:29Z")
From [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360038): > [@CJJ\*](#): > > The materialist **Sentient Meat** , for example, would say there is no such thing as metaphysics, so the question is meaningless. While I’m sure the subject of this quotation is the only person who can confirm or deny his personal views, I’d still like to discuss the issue. As I see it, this statement is as ridiculous as saying “there’s no such thing as politics”. An individual may claim that there’s only one possible metaphysical position that a sensible person should take, that metaphysical discussions are meaningless, that we should keep metaphysics out of some, or all, arguments - all of which are applicable to politics, too. But to claim that “there’s no such thing as metaphysics” is as close to a self-evident falsehood as I can imagine. But, others may disagree. Which is what we’re here for. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/2 "2006-02-23T19:08:49Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > But to claim that “there’s no such thing as metaphysics” is as close to a self-evident falsehood as I can imagine. > > But, others may disagree. Which is what we’re here for. 🙂 Well, I think a physicalist would pretty much _have_ to claim that “there’s no such thing as metaphysics”. If all is physical, there can be no _meta_-physical. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/3 "2006-02-23T19:25:56Z")
Since the question of whether some Thing is real or nonreal is a metaphysical question, the question of whether metaphysics is or isn’t real is a metaphysical question, making it a bit of a paradox, a state of affairs quite pleasing to those who like metaphysics but probably proof that “there’s nothing there” to those who don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/4 "2006-02-23T19:28:31Z")
I would take the statement as akin to an atheist saying “there’s no such things as religions”. Interpreted as “there’s something many people believe in, but it’s merely a popular delusion”, I think it’s true. Interpreted as “no one believes in this thing”, then it’s obviously false. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/5 "2006-02-23T19:34:06Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Since the question of whether some Thing is real or nonreal is a metaphysical question, the question of whether metaphysics is or isn’t real is a metaphysical question, making it a bit of a paradox, a state of affairs quite pleasing to those who like metaphysics but probably proof that “there’s nothing there” to those who don’t. Wouldn’t that be a metametaphysical question? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/6 "2006-02-23T19:55:26Z")
Metaphysics includes a lot of ideas that are not necessarily non-materialistic or supernatural. It includes a lot of discussion about how we perceive or define things in ways which go beyond the merely objective. You can describe a football, for instance, in purely physical terms- it’s an inflated, oblong bladder covered with leather- but there are also qualities or intellectual associations connected with it which do not exist “materially.” especially during game play. A lot of metaphysics is about analyzing how we process and signify information subjectively rather than just what the information is on a purely objective, physical level. In that sense metaphysics- as a philosophical category which obviously exists and does not have to imply a supernature reality. Of course, one sub-category of metaphysics is theology and theology necessarily carries supernatural assumptions. Sometimes any discussion of supernatural ideas gets informally referred to as metaphysics but the entire branch of metaphysics encompasses discussions of concepts which are not “material” but which are not supernatural either. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/7 "2006-02-23T21:13:57Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Well, I think a physicalist would pretty much _have_ to claim that “there’s no such thing as metaphysics”. > > If all is physical, there can be no _meta_-physical. The word “metaphysics” simply means “after physics.” It was assigned by Aristotelian scholars to those of his writings that dealt with “first principles” and which just happened to come after the “physics” section in the canonical collection (but Aristotle did not use the word). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#The\_origin\_of\_the\_word\_.27metaphysics.27](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#The_origin_of_the_word_.27metaphysics.27) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/8 "2006-02-23T21:55:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You can describe a football, for instance, in purely physical terms- it’s an inflated, oblong bladder covered with leather- but there are also qualities or intellectual associations connected with it which do not exist “materially.” especially during game play. I think a physicalist would respond that the “qualities or intellectual associations connected with it” _do_ exist materially, in the neuronal clusters of the players. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The word “metaphysics” simply means “after physics.” It was assigned by Aristotelian scholars to those of his writings that dealt with “first principles” and which just happened to come after the “physics” section in the canonical collection (but Aristotle did not use the word). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#The\_origin\_of\_the\_word\_.27metaphysics.27](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#The_origin_of_the_word_.27metaphysics.27) Oh, I understand that… it’s just that many of the staunch physicalists I’ve encountered would maintain that there is _nothing_ after/beyond physics, that looking for something beyond physics is like looking for something north of the north pole (plus, Aristotelian scholars haven’t had a lock on Metaphysics for quite some time). I think I’ll shut up now. Hopefully a real, card-carrying physicalist will show up soon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/9 "2006-02-23T22:22:57Z")
What the hell is a “physicalist?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/10 "2006-02-23T22:41:14Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > I think a physicalist would respond that the “qualities or intellectual associations connected with it” _do_ exist materially, in the neuronal clusters of the players. Well I don’t know what a “physicalist” is but philosophically speaking, we’re talking about a difference between the pure physicality of the object _itself_ and the non-material properties or associations which exist in the brain (i.e. separately from the object itself). The fact that these ideas exist in a _medium_ of electro-chemical brain activity is really beside the point. The point is only that metaphysics deals with abstracts rather than substances. There is a great deal of metaphysical discussion which has nothing to do with supernatural ideas. It’s essentially a way to talk about _how_ to talk about the physical- or rather everything that is REAL, whether everything that is real is “material” or not. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/11 "2006-02-23T22:44:17Z")
A physicalist is a particular sort of materialist. You can Google physicalism. With respect to the OP, people in here are right — CJJ equivocated on the term “metaphysics”. Sentient would never make such a mistake. Even Ayn Rand understood the different meanings of the term, assigning to her own philosophy the metaphysic of “objective reality”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/12 "2006-02-23T22:46:22Z")
I think my last post might have been a little bit less than coherent. To try to put it a lot more simply, metaphysics is the attempt understand and discuss (and argue about) what is _real_. That does not exclude supernatural or religious ideas but it does not necessitate them either. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/13 "2006-02-23T22:51:54Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A physicalist is a particular sort of materialist. You can Google physicalism. > [@](#): > > [Physicalist](http://www.counterbalance.net/gengloss/physi-body.html): > > Physicalist - the metaphysical position that the universe is explicable in terms of the components of matter and energy that it contains. It is a more comprehensive term than materialism because it includes energy as well as matter. Both terms are usually contrasted with idealism, theism, or some form of dualism. Under this definition, I’m a stone cold physicalist yet I believe that metaphysics exist. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/14 "2006-02-23T23:11:56Z")
OK, I guess I won’t shut up just yet. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Well I don’t know what a “physicalist” is but philosophically speaking, we’re talking about a difference between the pure physicality of the object _itself_ and the non-material properties or associations which exist in the brain (i.e. separately from the object itself). The fact that these ideas exist in a _medium_ of electro-chemical brain activity is really beside the point. I tend to agree. Most of the physicalists I’ve encountered wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > To try to put it a lot more simply, metaphysics is the attempt understand and discuss (and argue about) what is _real_. That’s why many physicalists think that “Metaphysics” is, at best, a misnomer. They believe that what is real _is_ physical; everything else is hooey. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Under this definition, I’m a stone cold physicalist yet I believe that metaphysics exist. How do you explain “non-material properties or associations” in terms of the components of matter and energy? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/15 "2006-02-23T23:24:39Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > OK, I guess I won’t shut up just yet. > > I tend to agree. Most of the physicalists I’ve encountered wouldn’t.That’s why many physicalists think that “Metaphysics” is, at best, a misnomer. Then they don’t understand what metaphysics is. > [@](#): > > They believe that what is real _is_ physical; everything else is hooey. Same here. 🆒 > [@](#): > > How do you explain “non-material properties or associations” in terms of the components of matter and energy? I explain it in terms of matter and energy. Like you said before, the abstracts are all just brain activity. I was trying to point out that the brain activity is separate from the objects themselves but that doesn’t make the activity less physical. Neurochemical responses to stimuli are “real” in that they exist as matter and energy they just don’t necessarily exist within or as part of the properties of the the stimuli _per se_. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/16 "2006-02-23T23:31:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > To try to put it a lot more simply, metaphysics is the attempt understand and discuss (and argue about) what is _real_. That does not exclude supernatural or religious ideas but it does not necessitate them either. Strictly speaking, that’s ontology, which is _part_ of metaphysics. Metaphysics also covers things like causation, identity (is Eric Blair identical with George Orwell?), determinism/indeterminism (is the future as immutable as the past?), etc. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/17 "2006-02-24T00:45:27Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think my last post might have been a little bit less than coherent. > > To try to put it a lot more simply, metaphysics is the attempt understand and discuss (and argue about) what is _real_. That does not exclude supernatural or religious ideas but it does not necessitate them either. You and I see eye to eye on this. Metaphysics (in the sense of the OP’s reference) has to do with the nature of reality. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/18 "2006-02-24T00:47:40Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Strictly speaking, that’s ontology, which is _part_ of metaphysics. Metaphysics also covers things like causation, identity (is Eric Blair identical with George Orwell?), determinism/indeterminism (is the future as immutable as the past?), etc. No, ontology has to do with the nature of _existence_. Thus, the ontological argument for the necessity of God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/19 "2006-02-24T00:57:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, ontology has to do with the nature of _existence_. Thus, the ontological argument for the necessity of God’s existence. True. There is a distinction between what exists physically and what is “real” in an absolute sense. That distinction is not always easy to articulate but it’s there. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/20 "2006-02-24T01:02:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, ontology has to do with the nature of _existence_. Thus, the ontological argument for the necessity of God’s existence. True - is there a name for the discussion of the nature of reality? “Metaphysics” seems to cover more than that. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825.md?page=2)