What is Metaphysics?

1
What is Metaphysics?

• What is Real?
• Metaphysics, inquires, presupposes some theory of
  what is real, and of what exists?
• Metaphysics is closely related to Epistemology
  in the same way that Epistemology asks, What is
  Knowledge and how does it differ from
  opinion/belief? Metaphysics asks, What is Reality
  and how it differs from mere appearance?
• What is Reality and what are the standards or
  criteria for what count as REAL?
• Both Eastern and Western Traditions have similar
  definitions of REALITY, that is what is
  PERMANENT, UNCHANGING, and UNCAUSED can be real.

2

• Reality then can consist of Matter Materialism-
  Physical Objects are real, due to the evidence
  gather from the senses and perceptions. It
  insists that matter alone provides a sufficient
  explanation of realityunderstanding its physical
  processes id sufficient.
• Reality then can consist of Ideas Idealism-
  Thoughts, concepts, minds are real, due to the a
  priori notions of the mind.
• Reality then can consist of both Matter and
  Ideas- Dualism, material and immaterial exists-
  body and mind- but how does one explain the
  relation between the two due to their different
  nature?
• Pragmatism Unlike Plato and Aristotle, who were
  concerned with how things actually are,
  pragmatists do not care what something is really
  like what they do care about is how something
  works.

3
The ordinary position regarding the existence of
PHYSICAL OBJECTS

• Objects Exists, because we the senses can
  perceive them. Why is an object existent i.e.
  and object in the garden.
• It persists over time, its existence is not only
  temporary
• The object is conceivable by sight and touch by
  many observers
• It occupies space
• It is capable of motion
• It has shape and size
• The object does not depend for its existence on
  the mind of an observer
• We could apply the same principles to any object
  in the universe, the car in the parking lot, etc

4

• This position is called NAÏVE Realism
• Metaphysics, does not present arguments to proof
  that Objects do not exist, but it is possible, it
  could be, that we are mistaken about their
  existence?

5
Arguments against NAÏVE Realism

• 1.Direct Perception
• Physical Objects are known through visual
  illusion- is seeing as it is, is seeing as it is
  not.
• Examples, a stick half immerse in water- straight
  and bent
• A penny- from side appears elliptical, vertically
  is round, horizontally a straight line.
• 2.Casual Argument
• The pen looks gray to me, because the light of a
  certain wave length is being transmitted brain,
  impulses,
• If my eyes had been focused differently then
  everything would appear double
• What is present in the visual field of an
  observer depends in the conditions of
  illumination, structure of eyes, nervous system
• Color, or a carpet, pants- things do not change
  color, looks double color

6

•  Distinction between sense data and physical
  objects
• Sense data are not qualities of physical objects
  nor part of physical objects how can we claim
  that physical object exist?
• Senses Sight, touch, sound, smells, taste
  (ACCIDENTS) it is SENSE DATA- QUALITIES OF
  OBJECTS NOT PART OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS
• OBJECT Red Ball, there has to be something,
  ball, apple, to be red.
• Is something, capable of independent existence?

7
René Descartes(1596-1650 AD)
Revised, 11/6/03

• Meditations on First Philosophy
• (1641)

(Text, pp. 283-306)
8
Anthem
9
Descartes Problem
Background

• The problem of skepticism (D concentrates on 2
  types of skepticism)
• General skepticism There are NO indubitable
  beliefs or propositions.
• Skepticism concerning the existence nature of
  the external world The existence and nature
  of the external world cannot be known.

10
Ds program of radical doubt

• Treat any belief that is to the slightest extent
  uncertain subject to doubt just as though it is
  obviously false.
• Accept only those beliefs that are completely
  certain and indubitable.
• Work on the foundations of my beliefs.

11
Foundational Beliefs

• Empiricism True beliefs are acquired through
  sense experience.
• My beliefs are not products of insanity.
• My beliefs are not products of my dreams.

12
Foundational Beliefs, contd

• Physical objects Even if we fail to perceive
  physical objects accurately, the primary
  measurable qualities of such objects (matter,
  extension, shape, quantity, size, location, time,
  etc.) are really real (i.e., physical objects do
  really exist).
• Even if empirical beliefs are subject to doubt,
  mathematical propositions are indubitable (e.g.,
  3 2 5, a square has neither more nor less
  than four sides).

13
Meditation II

• Descartes Refutation of Radical Skepticism

14
Descartes refutation ofradical skepticism

• Cogito ergo sum!

What does this mean?
15
The most famous statement in the history of
philosophy

• I think therefore I am.

Discourse on Method (1637)
16
If I am deceived,then I must exist!
I cannot doubt the truth of the statement, I
exist.
(Why not?)
17
Thus,

• Radical (general) skepticism is refuted.

18
Meditation II, contd

• The Mind-Body Problem
• Descartes Psycho-Somatic Dualism

19
Three metaphysical perspectives relevant to the
mind-body problem
20
Metaphysical Dualism Reality is
two-dimensional, partly material and partly
non-material (minds, ideas, souls, spirits,
consciousness, etc.). Metaphysical Materialism
Reality is nothing but matter-in-motion-in-space-a
nd-in-time. There are no non-material
realities. Metaphysical Idealism Reality is
nothing but Mind, Idea, Soul, Spirit,
Consciousness, etc. Matter does not exist (its
an illusion?).
21
Application to the mind-body problem

• Metaphysical Materialism A person is nothing
  but a physical organism (body only).
• Metaphysical Idealism A person is
  consciousness only (mind, soul, spirit) not at
  all a material being.
• Metaphysical Dualism A person is a composite of
  (1) mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and
  (2) body.

22
Cartesian Dualism

• I know with certainty THAT I exist (Cogito ergo
  sum), but
• WHAT am I?
• Am I my body? No, because I can doubt the
  existence of my body, whereas I cannot doubt the
  existence of myself (the I).
• I am a thinking thing, a thing that doubts,
  understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses,
  imagines, and has sensations.

23
Is Descartes right?

• Can you doubt the existence of your body (as well
  as other physical things)?

Why or why not?
24
I can conceive of myself as existing without a
body, but I cannot conceive of myself as existing
without conscious awareness.

• Bryan Magee, The Great Philosophers (Oxford 1987)

25
Descartes mind-body dualism leads to . . . .
26
Meditation III,which deals with

• (1) skepticism concerning the existence nature
  of the external world
• (2) the existence of God

27
God the removal of doubt as to
Meditations V VI

• the existence of the external world

28
The content of Meditation V

• Mathematical thinking its (physical
  non-physical) objects clarity distinctness
  again -- what is clear distinct must be true
• Ds ontological argument for the existence of
  God
• God certainty

29
Descartes third argument

• for the existence of God

(the ontological argument again)
30
1. If the nonexistence of God (an infinitely
perfect being) were possible, then existence
would not be part of Gods essence (that is,
existence would not be a property of the
divine nature). 2. If existence were not part of
Gods essence (that is, a property of the
divine nature), then God would be a
contingent (rather than necessary) being. 3. The
idea of God as a contingent being (that is, the
idea of an infinitely perfect being with
contingent rather than necessary existence)
is self-contradictory. 4. It is impossible to
think of God as not existing. 5. The
nonexistence of God is impossible.
31
Certainty about God

• is the basis of certainty about everything else.

32
Meditation VIRemoval of doubt as to the
existence of the external world

• Since God exists
• is no deceiver,
• it follows necessarily
• that the external world can be known to exist.

Why?
33
Gilbert RyleDescartes Myth
PHL467 Philosophy of Mind
34
Ryle
Concept of Mind (1949) The official doctrine,
hailing chiefly from Descartes, is substance
dualism. Bifurcation of mental/physical
inner/outer assumption that there are two
kinds of existence/status etc.
(1900-1976)
35
Ryle
This dogma of the Ghost in the Machine is
entirely false, and false not in detail but in
principle. It is one big mistake and a
mistake of a special kind. It is, namely, a
category mistake.
36
Ryle
This dogma of the Ghost in the Machine is
entirely false, and false not in detail but in
principle. It is one big mistake and a
mistake of a special kind. It is, namely, a
category mistake.
37
Ryle
Examples university, division,
team-spirit, average taxpayer. so long as
John Doe continues to think of the Average
Taxpayer as a fellow-citizen, he will tend to
think of him as an elusive insubstantial man, a
ghost who is everywhere yet nowhere.
38
Ryle
Assumption that mind belongs to the categories
of mechanics thing, stuff, cause,
etc. But, according to the official doctrine,
mind has to be a non-physical, non-mechanical
thing/stuff/cause and it cannot be governed by
mechanical laws.
39
Ryle
Descartes is wrong to think that our outward
actions or behavior is evidence for an inner
state that causes our behavior. Using
psychological predicates to refer to mental
objects is a category mistake.
40
Ryle
For example, according to dualism, attentive
listening would be two acts. Firstly the physical
process of receiving sound, and secondly, the
mental process of attending which causes our
listening to be attentive.
41
Ryle
But a person is not listening as a physical
action and being attentive by a mental action.
There is merely one process characterized as
attentive listening. Take boiling water. The
boiling is not actually some hidden object
which is a separate thing from the water. Boiling
is simply the behavior of the water, not a part
of it, as attentive is merely the behavior of
the subject.
42
Ryle
Thus, the mind is not a non-physical substance
residing in the body, a ghost in a machine, but
a set of capacities and abilities belonging to
the body. According to Ryle, all references to
the mental must be understood, at least
theoretically, in terms of witnessable
activities. (psychological behaviorism)
43
Ryle
Criticisms of Ryles psychological
behaviorism - Not all mental states are shown
in behavior - Inadequate when applied to
yourself - Behavior is not indicative of mental
states but the other way around - Doesnt
account for qualia.