Combining Texts

Ideas for 'On What Grounds What', 'Idea for a Universal History' and 'Problems of Philosophy'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


3 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 1. Nature of Metaphysics
Modern Quinean metaphysics is about what exists, but Aristotelian metaphysics asks about grounding [Schaffer,J]
     Full Idea: On the now dominant Quinean view, metaphysics is about what there is (such as properties, meanings and numbers). I will argue for the revival of a more traditional Aristotelian view, on which metaphysics is about what grounds what.
     From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], Intro)
     A reaction: I find that an enormously helpful distinction, and support the Aristotelian view. Schaffer's general line is that what exists is fairly uncontroversial and dull, but the interesting truths about the world emerge when we grasp its structure.
1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 2. Possibility of Metaphysics
Metaphysics cannot give knowledge of the universe as a whole [Russell]
     Full Idea: It would seem that knowledge concerning the universe as a whole is not to be obtained by metaphysics.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Problems of Philosophy [1912], Ch.14)
     A reaction: Although Russell is strongly attracted to rationalism and platonism, this remark puts him firmly in the camp of Hume, and makes him godfather to the logical positivists. I regard metaphysics as extremely speculative attempts at explanation.
1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 3. Metaphysical Systems
If you tore the metaphysics out of philosophy, the whole enterprise would collapse [Schaffer,J]
     Full Idea: Traditional metaphysics is so tightly woven into the fabric of philosophy that it cannot be torn out without the whole tapestry unravelling.
     From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.3)
     A reaction: I often wonder why the opponents of metaphysics still continue to do philosophy. I don't see how you address questions of ethics, or philosophy of mathematics (etc) without coming up against highly general and abstract over-questions.