Metaphysics

Gig Φ Philosophy
(at-a-glance overviews of philosophical concepts)

Published September, 2022 [LAST UPDATED: 2024]

What is it?

'Meta' = "beyond" / "after" the physics.
The study of the nature of reality

Often in the business of describing the natural ordering of the universe through conceptual models / categorization

Common Questions

Cosmology

'Cosmos' = "universe" +
'logos' = "account" or "story"

● Why is there something rather than nothing?

● How did the universe / first being come to exist? ['Cosmogony' (i.e., "origin story")]

● What patterns / laws (if any) govern how things exist?

● How (if at all) might the universe end? ['Eschatology' (i.e., "last things")]

NOTE: Many of these questions we now think belong to the sciences alone

Ontology

'Ontos' = "truly" or "in reality" +
'logos' = "account" or "story"

● What exists dependent on / independent of the mind?

● What are existing entities like (i.e., what qualities do they possess)?

● Does a god(s) exist?

● Do we have free will?

● What is the nature of causation?

● What is the relationship (if any) between mind [soul / consciousness] and body?

NOTE: Many of these questions are now being pragmatically informed by cognitive psychology.

MIND & BODY

The Mind-Body Problem 

The issue of what mental phenomena really are and how they relate to the physical world

Critiques

Do the concepts and categories we use to describe reality influence or determine what we view reality as?

Do these categories and descriptions embody the values of the describer?

To what extent are these value-laden concepts gendered [privileging hegemonic masculinity]?

Theories of Sex, Gender, & Sexuality

Dualism

The notion that there are essentially two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, or substances 

Substance Dualism 

The notion that mind and body consist of two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, or substances—the mind being of nonphysical stuff and the body of physical stuff 

Property Dualism 

The view that mental properties are nonphysical properties arising from, but not reducible to, physical properties

Against [Substance] Dualism 

The idea of a nonphysical thing interacting with a physical thing is mysterious (interaction problem) and implausible (incompatible with scientific inquiry) 

Thus, the mind cannot be an immaterial substance that interacts causally with the physical world

NOTE: Certain proposed solutions (e.g., epiphenomenalism) attempt to address the interaction problem by maintaining their respective independence or postulating some external binding force (usually divine)

Materialism / Physicalism 

The doctrine that every object and event in the world is physical 

Identity Theory 

The view that mental states are identical to physical brain states

Logical Behaviorism 

The idea that mental states are dispositions to behave in a particular way in certain circumstances

Against Materialism / Physicalism

How can even a very complicated physical system produce mental phenomena that seem to have no physical characteristics? 

Infamous thought experiments (e.g., Chalmer's Zombies and Nagel's Bat) aim to demonstrate how inclined we are to maintain that there is something in addition to, or beyond, what the materialist can account for

Post-Materialism

Functionalism 

The view that the mind is the functions that the brain performs. I.e., mental states are functions between perceptual inputs and behavioral outputs

NOTE: This influential theory has led some philosophers to the view that the human brain is a kind of computer leading to the possibility of conscious A.I.

Eliminative Materialism

Claims that mental conscious states (desires, beliefs, intentions) don’t exist, and that future science will let us eliminate all terms referring to such states

Epiphenomenalism 

The notion that mental properties do not cause anything but merely accompany physical processes

 Against Functionalism

Similarly, functionalism is committed to such physical systems having mental states like ours if it is functionally equivalent to ours neurologically

Arguments using scenarios like Ned Block’s Chinese brain and John Searle’s Chinese room show that functionalism is dubious, for it seems possible to introduce an appropriate functional organization into a system and still not attain conscious experience or a cognitive capacity

Why Question Reality?

Help us make sense of (i) our own existence and (ii) our relationships to one another & our surroundings

These types of explanations can be at the MICRO or MACRO levels, in terms of determining what may [not] be immediately present to us and / or conceptualizing the universe itself

FREE WILL

The Problem of Free Will

We all seem to have a notion of free will. However, just because we think we have free will doesn’t prove that we do have it.

We are faced with the reality that much of what we refer to as “choices” have already been [pre] determined (either due to global restrictions (e.g., laws of nature / causation) or more local extenuating circumstances (may limit what options are actually available to us).

Test Your Intuitions

It seems that I make my own choices everyday (e.g., my clothes). However, it also seems to me that many of our choices are “caused” by various factors (e.g., limited by what I own, what is clean, etc.) If I could not have chosen a different outfit, then did I freely choose the outfit I am wearing?

Definitions of "Free Will"

One's intuitions on the philosophical problem will largely be governed by how one understands / defines "free will"

Ability to do otherwise

The Traditional Definition

“Could do otherwise” = You would have been able to do something different if you had wanted to. This means one is free in the sense that if they had desired to do something different than what they actually did, nothing would have prevented them from doing it.

This understanding of "free will" makes incompatibilism unavoidable in that there are obviously plenty of things that could potentially prevent someone from exercising their will.

Incompatibilism

The view that if determinism is true, no one can act freely (free will and determinism are incompatible). This also creates problems for the compatibility of theological notions like divine foreknowledge and free will.

Indeterminism

The view that not every event is determined by preceding events and / or the laws of nature

Hard Determinism

The view that free will does not exist, that no one acts freely because the universe is causally determined (by events from the past & laws of nature)

Where there's a will & a way

We can act freely as long as:

✓ Presence of Internal Will (psychological)

We have the power to do what we want, and

✓ Lack of External Barriers (physical)

Nothing is preventing us from doing it (for example, no one is restraining or coercing us)

This understanding of "free will" allows for some form of compatibilism to be possible, though there is still much debate over whether or not the predictability of one's choices undermines even this conception of free will. Others criticize this conception arguing that real freedom is not just the power to act if we will to, but power over the will itself.

Compatibilism

The view that although determinism is true, our actions can still be free

Soft Determinism

The doctrine that every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature

Libertarianism

The view that some actions are free, for they are ultimately caused, or controlled, by the person, or agent (i.e., agent causation)

Why Question Free Will?

It seems to be a necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) condition for taking moral responsibility for one's actions. So being able to establish one's free will is necessary for justifiable moral praise / blame, let alone any ensuing reward / punishment. 

Moreover, denial of free will can sometimes lead to Eliminativism / Fatalism / Nihilism. I.e., views that all events are predetermined / inevitable, making moral norms and perhaps even life itself, meaningless.