What is the difference between a Philosophical Arguement and a Metaphysical arguement?

[freesoulhope]

A poster on this forum claimed that a philsophical arguement is based on logic, and a metaphysical one, isn’t.
He also took it as far as to say that all arguements for God, including all of St Thomas Aquinus’s arguements, are not philosophical, but are in fact “metaphysical”, and cannot be said to be logic based. Are there any Catholic or Christian philosophers that are in agreement with this?

 

[cpayne]

A poster on this forum claimed that a philsophical arguement is based on logic, and a metaphysical one, isn’t.
He also took it as far as to say that all arguements for God, including all of St Thomas Aquinus’s arguements, are not philosophical, but are in fact “metaphysical”, and cannot be said to be logic based. Are there any Catholic or Christian philosophers that are in agreement with this?

Depends on how one defines “metaphysical.” In secular bookstores, the "metaphysical’ shelf means stuff on channeling, New Age, Shirley Maclaine, crystals, and so on. In the philosophical sense, however, metaphysics just means the discussion of reasons or causes of things and the nature of their being (so metaphysics is a subset of ontology, the study of being as such). So in the first sense, “metaphysics” is not logic-based, but in the second sense (the philosophical sense, which is the only way Aquinas used it), it very definitely is logic-based. This includes Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence, which are based on his discussion of the reasons or cause for the existence of the cosmos.

 

[freesoulhope]

Depends on how one defines “metaphysical.” In secular bookstores, the "metaphysical’ shelf means stuff on channeling, New Age, Shirley Maclaine, crystals, and so on. In the philosophical sense, however, metaphysics just means the discussion of reasons or causes of things and the nature of their being (so metaphysics is a subset of ontology, the study of being as such). So in the first sense, “metaphysics” is not logic-based, but in the second sense (the philosophical sense, which is the only way Aquinas used it), it very definitely is logic-based. This includes Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence, which are based on his discussion of the reasons or cause for the existence of the cosmos.

So his perception of metaphysics is based largely on a stereo-type?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which asks the question: what is the nature of reality?

A philosophical argument could address a metaphysical question: what is real?

Or a philosophical argument could address a question under any of the other branches of philosophy. Like:

what is beautiful?
what is good?
what is knowable?
what is logical?

 

[Mirdath]

Not quite, freesoulhope

Metaphysics can and should use logic – for instance, Aquinas’ argument from first cause wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense were it not logically constructed. I am not and have never been talking about crystal-waving hippies when I use the term.

It’s the foundation that’s different. A reasonable general philosophical argument is rooted in the empirical and/or rational. A metaphysical argument, however, relies on the idea that there are things beyond human perception and comprehension. Such a construct is not rationally sound – you have to have faith that the supernatural exists, then you can start talking logic.

As I’m sure you remember, I’m agnostic. I’ve given considerable thought to the nature of a possible God, however, trying to come up with what makes most sense. I do not believe I can know if that deity really exists; however, if I assume for a moment that the supernatural is real, I can logically work out attributes of the supreme being.

Logic is a tool of metaphysics just as it is of strict empiricism; but to use it properly in a metaphysical context, there must also be Faith or the assumption of Faith.

 

[tdgesq]

Metaphysics can and should use logic – for instance, Aquinas’ argument from first cause wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense were it not logically constructed. I am not and have never been talking about crystal-waving hippies when I use the term.

This is correct. The study of any subdivision of philosophy must from the very nature of things start with logic.

It’s the foundation that’s different. A reasonable general philosophical argument is rooted in the empirical and/or rational. A metaphysical argument, however, relies on the idea that there are things beyond human perception and comprehension.

This is incorrect for two reasons. First, the metaphysical systems of Aristotle and Aquinas are firmly rooted in the empirical. In fact, a Thomist would tell you that (with perhaps a few very rare exceptions) all knowledge comes to us through the senses. Second, a “metaphysical argument” (whatever that may be) does not rely on things that are beyond human perception and comprehension. It is precisely because of human perception that (through logic) conclusions can be reached about immaterial substances. In terms of comprehension, no system of being of any kind provides full comprehension.

Such a construct is not rationally sound – you have to have faith that the supernatural exists, then you can start talking logic.

This is seriously flawed. No one that I know who holds to the metaphysics of Aristotle or Aquinas would ever start with “faith that the supernatural exists.” They would start with the empirical and logic to reach that conclusion. Not the other way around. The fact is though, metaphysics explains these things much more convincingly than the nominalists can.

Logic is a tool of metaphysics just as it is of strict empiricism; but to use it properly in a metaphysical context, there must also be Faith or the assumption of Faith.

Faith. Yes, don’t we all have it though? Faith is not something unique to a philosophy of metaphysics. I would wager that I can demonstrate that you have just as much faith in your system of ontology, epistemology, and ethics that a Thomist has.

 

[Mirdath]

This is incorrect for two reasons. First, the metaphysical systems of Aristotle and Aquinas are firmly rooted in the empirical.

Metaphysics by definition defies the empirical.

In fact, a Thomist would tell you that (with perhaps a few very rare exceptions) all knowledge comes to us through the senses.

That’d be a bad Thomist. Continental rationalists, British empiricists, yes – but that doesn’t extend to the supernatural.

Second, a “metaphysical argument” (whatever that may be) does not rely on things that are beyond human perception and comprehension. It is precisely because of human perception that (through logic) conclusions can be reached about immaterial substances. In terms of comprehension, no system of being of any kind provides full comprehension.

Let’s differentiate between ‘abstract’ and ‘supernatural’ here. Abstract concepts, sure, raw philosophy can take those on. Supernatural – that’s metaphysics.

This is seriously flawed. No one that I know who holds to the metaphysics of Aristotle or Aquinas would ever start with “faith that the supernatural exists.” They would start with the empirical and logic to reach that conclusion. Not the other way around. The fact is though, metaphysics explains these things much more convincingly than the nominalists can.

Aquinas tried to get away from those a priori convictions, but he didn’t succeed. All his arguments for God, for instance, are invalidated rather easily; in the end, it requires faith. Although they may start with the empirical or the rational, they do not reach an end in the same way. They break.

Faith. Yes, don’t we all have it though? Faith is not something unique to a philosophy of metaphysics. I would wager that I can demonstrate that you have just as much faith in your system of ontology, epistemology, and ethics that a Thomist has.

Given that I don’t believe in the supernatural, and my positions on ethics are essentially rooted in the Categorical Imperative rather than divine fiat, I’m not sure you could make that stick

 

[Greg27]

Strictly speaking, we need to give a useful definition of metaphysics and a useful definition of philosophical argument.

Referring back to St Thomas, St Thomas argued that there are truths discoverable by natural reason alone, and truths which are known only by revelation. Thomas based this argument a lot on his reading of Aristotle, who at the time was regarded as the Master Philosopher.

Aristotle’s philosophy is quite complex but a part of Aristotle’s philosophy was concerned with what he defined as ‘Metaphysics.’ Metaphysics in the sense Aristotle understood it was somewhat different to how analytical philosophers would understand it today, but basically it concerned the ‘first principles’ of things such as God, the first causes of things, the nature of Being or Beings, and so on.

A lot of St Thomas’s philosophy is concerned with things which we would now define as ‘metaphysical’ questions as opposed to the questions studied by natural science, and also analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy has traditionally been concerned to study things from the viewpoint of carefully posing well-defined questions and by clearing away obscurities surrounding these questions by using various methods to clarify language and logic. This project is Post-Scholastic in nature and has its roots in Descartes and also Hume, Kant, Locke, and in the 20th century, Wittengenstein and Logical Positivism.

However, metaphysical questions are coming back and there seems to be general agreement amoung philosophers that they can be legitimate objects of philosophical inquiry, in the sense the tools of logic can be used to better understand these questions and argue for certain positions concerning them. This is similar to what St Thomas himself believed, and he was not averse to using logical methods or arguments to derive conclusions about various questions, many of which were metaphysical, which St Thomas felt it was rational to hold even purely in the light of natural reason (such as the immortality of the soul or God’s existence from the nature of things visible). However, where modern philosophy would diverge with Thomas is that religious revelation does not give us insights into metaphysical questions above and beyond those insights natural reason can demonstrate, and in fact much modern and post-modern philosophy is deeply hostile to religion and judges religious claims in the light of human reason (something which began with Descartes and is pretty much a child of the enlightenment). Of course there are philosophers, particularly Neo-Thomists, who completely disagree with this viewpoint, but that is probably another matter.

Getting back to the question, I think it can be argued that a philosophical argument tries to demonstrate a certain conclusion by correctly following the rules of logic and not appealing to irrational means such as mystical experience or divine revelation to settle a question, nor by engaging in fallacious modes of argument. A philosophical argument can be used to try and demonstrate the rationality of a metaphysical belief (such as God’s existence or the immortality of the soul) without trying to appeal to divine revelation, after which the argument becomes a matter not of philosophy but of theology.

In my view as Thomas himself showed though, as have many great Doctors of the Church and Saints, is that philosophy and theology can be used in harmony to better understand the mysteries of the faith, without necessarily leading to atheism or skepticism.

 

[tdgesq]

Metaphysics by definition defies the empirical.

O.k. Then give me your definition of metaphysics and demonstrate how it defies the empirical. If it’s what you gave me earlier, then don’t bother.

That’d be a bad Thomist. Continental rationalists, British empiricists, yes – but that doesn’t extend to the supernatural.

No. It would not be a bad Thomist. What do you think natural theology is? It is not a confession of the supernatural. If you believe that Thomists don’t begin with the senses, then you are badly mistaken. You might disagree with their conclusions, but that is very different from what you assert here.

Let’s differentiate between ‘abstract’ and ‘supernatural’ here. Abstract concepts, sure, raw philosophy can take those on. Supernatural – that’s metaphysics.

Why the distinction between the abstract and the supernatural? I didn’t bring it up. Perhaps you now realize that you weren’t quite accurate in your definition of metaphysics. I don’t really know of what “raw philosopy” consists, but if you think it can explain human abstraction - bring it on.

Aquinas tried to get away from those a priori convictions, but he didn’t succeed. All his arguments for God, for instance, are invalidated rather easily; in the end, it requires faith. Although they may start with the empirical or the rational, they do not reach an end in the same way. They break.

Well, look, I’m not going to become an apologist for Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, because frankly I think the Kalam Cosmological argument is far better. I realize though that you have decided that the existence of God must be understand a priori because there is no method to come to this conclusion a posteriori. But you attribute to Aquinas something that you should attribute to your own system - faith. You know what’s going to happen if I push you to your own presuppositions. So why don’t you just admit that you hold things on faith just like the Thomist?

Given that I don’t believe in the supernatural, and my positions on ethics are essentially rooted in the Categorical Imperative rather than divine fiat, I’m not sure you could make that stick

It is interesting that you begin with the ethic of Kant, especially since it requires a foundation that we both know you haven’t presented here. How about we start with ontology and epistemology.

 

[tdgesq]

Of course there are philosophers, particularly Neo-Thomists, who completely disagree with this viewpoint, but that is probably another matter.

Maybe not. It looks like you are going to have to deal with me and Maritain.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

A poster on this forum claimed that a philsophical arguement is based on logic, and a metaphysical one, isn’t.
He also took it as far as to say that all arguements for God, including all of St Thomas Aquinus’s arguements, are not philosophical, but are in fact “metaphysical”, and cannot be said to be logic based. Are there any Catholic or Christian philosophers that are in agreement with this?

Physical argument: Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. My friend has a horse, and it was gored. There were odd hoof prints in the field. So an IPU must have done it.

More Philosophical Physical argument: We know that most grazing animals have a defence caste with horns - deer, rhincoceroces, sheep, cattle etc. Horses don’t. However they are not all eaten up. Therefore their defence caste must be invisible.

Metaphysical argument: two is the number of the devil, and therefore base beasts like the goats have two horns to indicate their lecherous nature. However horses are noble animals so cannot take two horns. Because of the debasement of man it was necessary to remove the horses’ horn so that people could have transport. In fact that which is holy sinful people cannot see, which is why we don’t perceive the pink unicorns all around us.

You can’t draw firm lines between these styles of arguments.

 

[freesoulhope]

Aquinas tried to get away from those a priori convictions, but he didn’t succeed. All his arguments for God, for instance, are invalidated rather easily; in the end, it requires faith. Although they may start with the empirical or the rational, they do not reach an end in the same way. They break.

It seems that, the only reason you disagree with saint Thomas, is because his conclusion lead him to God; the only evidence you give in favor of your opinon is the words “he didn’t succeed”. This is not good enough and shows your inability to logically disprove an opossing postion.

Thomas looked at the world and realised that in the “Physical World” things work through cause and effect. (something that everybody know, but takes for granted) The world is a huge chain of cuases, and it is a system that is greatly regognised now through big bang cosmology’ which came after Thomas’s time. Thomas argued that if everything we see is a cuase of something elses, then for this chain of causes to make logicall sense, there has to be, ultimately, an uncaused cause from which everything has come to being; since it is not logical that there is an infinite regression of finite causes that go back into the past without anything that justifys the causes that we see. Its like a chain that is suspended in the air that has logical links but has nothing to justify its suspension in the air; you will assume logically that if you follow the chain you will eventually reach the ultimate reason for its suspension; not come to find that, it has no ultimate reason for it being suspended in the air; and that it was going on forever. In the real world, by nature of logic, you would think that irrational. By this point, St Thomas has only defined what should be completly obvious to anybody, and has not once said anything about God or the nature of God or the supernatural. He has only defined the nature of material objects in the real world according to simple common sense; for example if i put a marble in motion, the i am the cuase of that motion; it cannot be said to be the cause of its self.

Its only after explaning this, that he defines the uncaused cause as God, since this uncaused cause is the cause of all things.

 

[cpayne]

Metaphysics by definition defies the empirical.

That’d be a bad Thomist. Continental rationalists, British empiricists, yes – but that doesn’t extend to the supernatural.

Let’s differentiate between ‘abstract’ and ‘supernatural’ here. Abstract concepts, sure, raw philosophy can take those on. Supernatural – that’s metaphysics.

Aquinas tried to get away from those a priori convictions, but he didn’t succeed. All his arguments for God, for instance, are invalidated rather easily; in the end, it requires faith. Although they may start with the empirical or the rational, they do not reach an end in the same way. They break.

Given that I don’t believe in the supernatural, and my positions on ethics are essentially rooted in the Categorical Imperative rather than divine fiat, I’m not sure you could make that stick

(1) No; you are certainly free to disagree with Aquinas, obviously, but the other poster has the better understanding of what Aquinas actually said. “There is nothing in the intellect which is not first in the senses”–that sounds about as empiricist as any empiricist I know of, with the common-sense addition “except intellect itself.” Aquinas himself would be one of the “bad” Thomists, I guess?

(2) “Abstract” vs. “supernatural”–Aquinas’s arguments were not terribly abstract, but if argument leads one to belief in the existence of non-corporeal intelligence (“supernatural”), that’s still logic-based.

(3) The reason Aquinas “breaks” from the empirical in his arguments is simply that the intellect is capable of reflecting upon and generalizing from its sensory experiences. If we didn’t “break” from empirical experience, we’d just be cameras. Again, reflection and generalization can still be logic-based, even if it leads one to abstract or general conclusions.

(4) “Categorical imperative”–so do you believe in all that spooky “deontological” morality supposedly inherent in the nature of actions?

 

[cpayne]

In response (1) above, when I said “other poster,” I realize there is more than one poster; I meant the one Mirdath was specifically responding to. Not trying to slight anyone.

One thing I like about you, Mirdath, is that you argue back to responses. I haven’t been here long, but I’ve already run into several folks who make controversial posts–and then ignore objections, or cherry-pick the objections they are going to respond to.

Having said that, I still disagree with your statement of Aquinas’s views–not just whether or not he succeeds in his arguments, but actually what he SAYS in his arguments.

 

[Mirdath]

O.k. Then give me your definition of metaphysics and demonstrate how it defies the empirical. If it’s what you gave me earlier, then don’t bother.

Metaphysics is the study of the supernatural.

No. It would not be a bad Thomist. What do you think natural theology is? It is not a confession of the supernatural. If you believe that Thomists don’t begin with the senses, then you are badly mistaken. You might disagree with their conclusions, but that is very different from what you assert here.

Yet God cannot be sensed; Thomists take those senses and cram them into assertions based on faith. ‘Things exist’ becomes ‘things have a cause’ becomes ‘there has to be an end to the chain somewhere’ becomes ‘whoops, God’.

Why the distinction between the abstract and the supernatural? I didn’t bring it up. Perhaps you now realize that you weren’t quite accurate in your definition of metaphysics. I don’t really know of what “raw philosopy” consists, but if you think it can explain human abstraction - bring it on.

Sure it can – though, as always, not necessarily conclusively. But philosophy is less interested in ‘how did we come to have abstract qualities?’ and more in ‘we seem to have them, what are we going to do with them?’. It can’t prove their existence as it works within a self-contained system; for that, one must turn to another route, such as metaphysics.

But you attribute to Aquinas something that you should attribute to your own system - faith. You know what’s going to happen if I push you to your own presuppositions. So why don’t you just admit that you hold things on faith just like the Thomist?

What things?

It is interesting that you begin with the ethic of Kant, especially since it requires a foundation that we both know you haven’t presented here. How about we start with ontology and epistemology.

Actually I just liked the idea of the CI; it makes sense and seems to be directed generally toward the good of society and the individual. That’s my foundation.

freesoulhope:

It seems that, the only reason you disagree with saint Thomas, is because his conclusion lead him to God; the only evidence you give in favor of your opinon is the words “he didn’t succeed”. This is not good enough and shows your inability to logically disprove an opossing postion.

I disagree with him before that: in the argument from first cause, I don’t think there necessarily must be an uncaused cause at all. It’s a logical leap, and is the first place that argument breaks down. If Aquinas could prove God without such leaps, I’d be a believer; fortunately or unfortunately, that seems to be generally impossible.

“Categorical imperative”–so do you believe in all that spooky “deontological” morality supposedly inherent in the nature of actions?

Not especially; I believe in not being a jerk.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mirdath, there are already definitions for the branches of philosophy, including metaphysics. Rather than speculating what those might be, it would be very useful to find out what they are so that we are all reading from the same page; so that the discussion can move forward; and so that we can all learn from sharing ideas. Fair enough?

I suspect that your understanding of metaphysics is getting blended with epistemology.

Metaphysics asks the question what is real?
Epistemology asks the question what is knowable?

As far as starting from observation (empiricism): that is not the only system of logic.

Aristotle was the big mover of observation as the starting point for all reasonable thought. He developed a system of logic which later became what we know as the sciences, wherein general understandings are inferred through induction from observations.

Previous to A, folks were big on deductive reasoning from first assumptions.

Basically if we are talking about knowledge we are talking about scientia which means knowledge and is the root from where we derive our term science. There are two poles to science: observation and theory.

One is not preferable to the other. They both work hand in hand to further knowledge.

Folks observe things and infer principles about how they work through induction.

Then they come to a point where it is obvious that their principles are not explaining everything that they are observing.

So in come the theorists. They crunch the numbers, do the math. They come up with new principles using deduction of how things work. Only thing is that they sometimes go overboard – because the math demands certain conclusions – and then the observational scientists have to go looking for observational proof of the new equations.

 

[freesoulhope]

Metaphysics is the study of the supernatural.

I believe the honorable gentlemen also asked for you to explain why metaphysical arguments s defies logic. Why do you not explain yourself?

 

[freesoulhope]

Metaphysics is the study of the supernatural.

Yet God cannot be sensed; Thomists take those senses and cram them into assertions based on faith. ‘Things exist’ becomes ‘things have a cause’ becomes ‘there has to be an end to the chain somewhere’ becomes ‘whoops, God’.

Explain why this is not logical; you have only ridiculed the concept; you have not proved it to be illogical. It seems to me that your simply prejudice of the conclusion; you have offered no reasonable arguement in return.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Given that I don’t believe in the supernatural, and my positions on ethics are essentially rooted in the Categorical Imperative rather than divine fiat, I’m not sure you could make that stick

First of all, I am wondering if folks can contribute links and relevant abbreviated quotes when they are referring to the writings of philosophers. Philosphy is a large topic; not everyone has the same favourite philosophers; and therefore not everyone is understanding an unsupported reference when made. In order for us to discuss, we need to learn. In order for us to learn we must all be reading from the same page. OK? Thank you.

What is supernatural? Something that goes beyond the natural world. Science uses observation and theory to plum the natural world. Thing is that how we have defined the natural world has evolved over the centuries. What may have seemed supernatural in the Middle Ages is understood as completely part of the natural world in the 21st Century. So this is where your metaphysics is slipping the boundaries into epistemology.

In these days, much of what we theorize cannot be seen with the naked eye. And therefore we use faith to observe. Faith in microscopes, telescopes, particle accelerators, and so on. St Paul defined this process 2000 years ago: “Faith is the evidence of things unseen, the proof of things hoped for.” (Hebrews 11:1) St Paul was talking about theoretical science. Faith, therefore, is no more and no less than theoretical science. It is not magic. It is not mumbo jumbo. It respects logical methodology.

For more on what the Church actually believes on faith and science read these:

Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes…

The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion, science. On the contrary, unity always presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements.

Each of these members should become not less itself but more itself in a dynamic interchange, for a unity in which one of the elements is reduced to the other is destructive, false in its promises of harmony and ruinous of the integrity of its components.

We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other.

Faith can never conflict with reason

Truth cannot contradict truth…

 

[Mirdath]

Ani Ibi: you’re quite correct. Metaphysics is a bit deeper than just ‘what is real?’ though, concerning itself also with attributes of the real, objectivity/subjectivity, and to an extent the place of humanity. I was not using the term correctly myself, though – being more concerned with the questionably-real parts. Thanks

I believe the honorable gentlemen also asked for you to explain why metaphysical arguments s defies logic. Why do you not explain yourself?

I hold it as an article of faith that he did not; further, should I be wrong, let him ask.

Explain why this is not logical; you have only ridiculed the concept; you have not proved it to be illogical. It seems to me that your simply prejudice of the conclusion; you have offered no reasonable arguement in return.

I explained some of my problems with the Prime Mover argument lower down in that same post, actually, responding directly to you.