Sound philosophy, particularly metaphysics, is missing from our thinking today in the West. Science rules. The problem with scientism is that it only presents half the picture—the particulars without the overall context. We are a society of brute facts and data. The issue with that is nobody knows how to interpret these facts in light of the big picture; we miss the forest for the trees. Science cannot explain all of reality. That’s why we need the philosopher to complete the picture. The trouble is that philosophy has been relegated to the back burner and not taken seriously. After all, science has the final say. Why is this?
I am now going to turn a sharp corner in this blog. I started with fairly easy-to-understand material from the Presocratic philosophers up through Socrates, then more intermediate material with Plato, and now more advanced material concerning metaphysics. You may ask, “But where is Aristotle?” My answer is that this is Aristotle. Much of sound metaphysics is found in Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle’s Act-Potency idea was the bedrock of metaphysics until the Scientific Revolution when it was discarded along with metaphysics itself.
Aristotle’s metaphysics, and metaphysics itself, is slowly returning, partly due to the scientific puzzles of the bewildering Quantum Physics, where nothing seems to make sense until Aristotle’s principles are applied. We will see that metaphysics is essential, and the more a society tries to discard it, the more problems result as a consequence. For some reason though, interest in metaphysics is at an all-time high. That is because science can only take us so far, as it is severely limited to the material world. As one philosopher astutely noted, “Metaphysics is a discipline that buries its undertakers!”
In addition, I will be drawing from much of Thomas Aquinas’s material, as he was a philosopher-theologian who adopted Aristotle’s ideas with a few modifications and built his philosophy upon them. This is the metaphysics we will be exploring in this and many future posts. I am deeply indebted to the work of Father Norris Clarke, a Catholic priest, philosopher, and scholar, and Edward Feser, a contemporary Thomistic philosopher, for enlightening my mind about metaphysics. I have listed some of their works in the bibliography below.
Philosophy and Science
During this series, I am going to take a strict philosophical approach, rather than mixing theology and philosophy as I have done in my prior posts. What is a strict philosophical approach?
Man has an intellect that can reason and grasp abstract concepts. As such, we can construct universal ideas from the particulars that we receive through our senses. Our senses detect the particulars, and our intellect abstracts concepts from those particulars. In philosophy, we reason from the particulars upwards in a synthetic approach, rather than the analytic one found in pure empirical science. Philosophy relies on natural reasoning alone to understand our common human experiences. We start with ourselves and our experiences as our “laboratory” and attempt to apply reason to develop universal principles. This is in stark contrast to empirical science and theology.
The scientific approach, in its pure form—politics and grant money aside—relies on verifiable, repeatable experiments and is limited to the physical world of what we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. If it can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist, so the concept of God or the spiritual can never be “proven” scientifically. The problem with scientism today is that it claims to have the only truth. The problem with that is the claim that “the only truth is what can be verified by empirical evidence” is a metaphysical statement and not a scientific one.
Philosophy and Theology
Sound theology, not liberal theology, relies on revelation from God. In the Christian world, this is recognized as the Holy Scriptures. In our studies, we will limit our approach to natural reason to come to our conclusions rather than revelation. An example of how these two compare is in the concept of God. Metaphysics is able to reason from our experiences to the fact that, due to the principle of causation, among other things, a “god” exists who must be one, infinite, and the embodiment of perfection. But it cannot go beyond that without revelation. Christian revelation agrees with this conclusion but tells us that this one God is a Trinity comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—something we could never ascertain through reason alone.
Metaphysics and theology also differ from religion. While metaphysics is a speculative quest for insights into the fundamental nature of reality and theology is a systematic study of revealed knowledge, religion involves a response of the heart and a practical commitment to a set of religious beliefs. Even though these disciplines often overlap in real life, one can be soundly religious without being a philosopher or theologian.
Philosophy can be a helpful tool to science and theology since it helps train the brain to reason correctly. This is why many theologians and scientists come to the wrong conclusions with the data they have, as it takes sound reasoning to analyze the information and synthesize reasonable conclusions from it. I call philosophy a “boot camp for the mind” since it is essential for developing sound thinking. I advised my son to try reading 30 minutes of philosophy a day to sharpen his thinking skills. We often take our bodies to the gym—why not take our minds to the gym of philosophy?
What is Metaphysics?
Metaphysics is the innermost fundamental component of philosophy. It is foundational to everything else in philosophy. According to Thomas Aquinas, philosophy in general, in the classical tradition from Plato forward, deals with how the particular domains of our experiences fit into an integrated whole. Examples of particular domains include the philosophy of man (anthropology), philosophy of art, philosophy of medicine, and philosophy of science, among a myriad of other domains. We look for ultimate meanings in the various domains and their connections with the rest of reality. Metaphysics then encompasses a vision of the whole of ultimate reality and what is common to everything, living and non-living.
One may object and say that the study of everything is so broad that it doesn’t really say anything about anything—a theory of everything can’t be about anything! It doesn’t have a distinctive subject matter. The answer to this objection is that, while it is true that metaphysics doesn’t have a distinctive subject matter, it does have a distinctive point of view by which it studies all things. It analyzes the very premises that science takes for granted and, as such, gets underneath the basic given premises of science and provides a foundation for them.
Metaphysics is more Foundational than Empirical Science
In other words, science presupposes things that it cannot justify, putting modern science on shaky ground. It can tell us to an extent what certain things are and how they work the way they do, but it cannot tell us why they exist or what their fundamental natures are beyond atoms, molecules, subatomic particles, and energy. Science is good at describing the quantitative—what can be measured—but not the qualitative—what is the very nature of the beings that make up our universe.
Science also presupposes an ordered universe with predictable laws but does not tell us why this is the case. Why is disorder and chaos not the norm? Where do these laws come from, and how can order and physical laws arise out of the chaos of the Big Bang? We know that substances exist, but what does it mean to be a substance, and where does being come from?
Change is part of our world, but to what extent does consistency remain in change, if at all? Scientific laws give us descriptions of what happens, but how can we explain such patterns? These are the kinds of questions metaphysics seeks to answer by analyzing our experiences with sound reason alone. Answering these questions would help to enlighten the scientist to see his small reality in light of the bigger picture and, as a result, become a better scientist.
Metaphysics and Being
You are probably thinking that I still haven’t told you what metaphysics is—it still seems so ambiguous. So let me boil it down for you by turning to someone much smarter than I: Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian.
What is the fundamental entity of the universe? One might say “matter,” others “subatomic particles” such as neutrinos, and still others may say “hydrogen,” since hydrogen is the most ubiquitous element in the universe. The problem is that all of these things share something more fundamental. Everything in the universe—dogs, atoms, trees, stars, and even God and angels—have this one fundamental entity in common: Being. Without the act of existence, a being simply cannot be. Despite their differences, everything shares this one thing in common. In short, metaphysics is the study of the nature of being.
As St. Thomas said, metaphysics is being qua being, which translates to something like “being in the manner of being,” “acting in the capacity as being,” or more simply “being as being.” By understanding the concept of being more fully (though never completely plumbing the depths), we grasp that since being is fundamental to everything, this is where metaphysics starts and eventually ends, as it comes full circle using concepts like essence and existence, participation, substance and accident, act and potency, and matter and form (and don’t worry, I will define and explain all of these concepts in later articles).
The Intelligibility of Being
Metaphysics is a drive to understand both beings in themselves—the intelligibility of being—and how beings relate to one another in the seamless fabric of the universe. The word universe comes from two Latin words combined and literally means “turning toward the one” (universum). This includes not just material beings, but mental beings as well—beings that can only come about by the action of real minds. By mental beings, I mean things like ideas, mathematical formulas, abstract ideas, and philosophical constructions, among a whole host of other things. For example, a triangle as imagined with our intellect is a mental being because it exists only in our minds. A triangle drawn on a piece of paper would be a real being. The formula E=mc² is another example of a mental being.
Why do we do metaphysics? Metaphysics comes out of an insatiable drive that we have to understand the world around us and other beings like and unlike ourselves, whether they are living or non-living. In short, all of us humans, by nature, have a desire to know. It is a natural impulse motivated by our love for creation. We desire to know that which we love. This is why our sense of sight is so important and our most important sense, for with it we behold and marvel at the world around us, taking in more information than from any other sense. Aristotle said that it is the most important sense for cognition.
We know that toddlers are always asking “why” questions, often a whole string of why questions one after another. Even though we continue to have a curiosity about the universe, we often stop asking why questions simply because we don’t have the time or mental space due to the busyness of life. Studying metaphysics will give you a chance to start asking those fundamental questions again. When Einstein was once asked how he came up with his theories of the universe, he responded by saying that he never grew out of the “why” stage of childhood.
Aristotle and Metaphysics
Aristotle was the first to coin the term and really develop the concept of Metaphysics. The interesting thing is that after he wrote Physics, primarily dealing with the physical world, he wrote his next work, τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, which literally means “those after (meta) the physics.” I bring this up because, at first, the term simply meant “the book written after Physics (φυσικά).” It just referred to “the next book.”
Since then, and because his ideas were so profound and fundamental about the nature of the universe, the name “metaphysics” eventually became a term for the separate philosophical discipline that Aristotle helped establish—Metaphysics. The Greek prefix meta (μετὰ) has many shades of meaning, one of which is “beyond.” This fits perfectly because metaphysics is not just the study of the material universe’s particularities but of the entire universe and everything it contains. Leave it to Aristotle to turn a book title into an entire philosophical discipline—and arguably the most important one.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Aristotle’s works were unfortunately lost for several centuries. During this time, Plato ruled the philosophical world in the West with the advent of Neoplatonism by Plotinus in the third century. Eventually, notable figures like St. Augustine identified themselves as Neoplatonists.
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas
Where did Aristotle go during those missing years? His works fell into the hands of Muslim philosophers, such as Averroes, a twelfth-century polymath, who wrote extensively on philosophy, theology, medicine, astronomy, physics, psychology, mathematics, jurisprudence, and linguistics. He authored over a hundred books. Averroes was most noted for being an avid proponent of Aristotle, translating and commenting on his works in depth, earning him the moniker “The Commentator.” He opposed the Neoplatonic ideas of earlier Muslim philosophers like Avicenna.
When the Muslims came to Spain, they brought Aristotle, via Averroes, with them, thus reintroducing Aristotle to Europe. These works eventually made their way into the hands of the medieval Scholastics in the 13th century. After reading them, Thomas Aquinas became an Aristotelian, and the rest is history. Thomas not only adopted Aristotle’s ideas but expanded on them, modifying them slightly and interpreting them through a Christian lens.
Thus, the West achieved what it had strived for since the early church days: a synthesis of philosophy and theology, or faith and reason. This was not unusual for medieval Scholastics, many of whom were both theologians and philosophers, which is why the lines between the two disciplines were often blurred at this time in history. St. Thomas took Aristotle’s metaphysical concepts and developed them more fully than Aristotle did, making some very important changes that had—and continue to have—significant ramifications for theology, particularly regarding the nature of God and the nature of humanity.
The Fundamental Assumption of Metaphysics
Both science and philosophy have metaphysical assumptions about the universe, foundational ideas that are considered true and upon which the rest of the discipline depends. The only difference is that modern science will not admit that these “givens,” such as the fact that there are predictable universal laws in nature, are metaphysical assumptions. Philosophy, particularly metaphysics, recognizes that foundational assumptions are necessary if we are to proceed with inquiry. In metaphysics, there is one fundamental assumption and three principles that flow from it. The fundamental assumption is that the universe is intelligible.
This is also a given in modern science, but it is handled in three ways. Firstly, scientists can admit that it is an assumption. But, doing so would place it in the realm of metaphysics, which they view as not a true source of knowledge since they are empiricists. Admitting to a foundational assumption would also undermine their belief in empiricism, which states that only what can be verified through empirical means is valid.
Secondly, they could claim that the assumption that the universe is intelligible can be proven scientifically. However, this is a significant challenge. Scientists must empirically verify that assumption as true across the universe. Thirdly, they can deny their underlying philosophical assumption. They can continue doing science as if that assumption existed. It is impossible to do science without it. In my opinion, this is what most scientists do. As we will see, the assumption that the universe is intelligible is essential. It serves as a foundation for both metaphysics and science.
Fundamental Assumption: The Universe is Intelligible
Remember, in metaphysics, we start from ourselves and our experiences and work outward. We take in information through our senses, and then our intellect abstracts the information to make sense of it. In other words, we use our natural reasoning skills. The scientist, on the other hand, takes that same sensory information and analyzes it through testing to determine what can be known empirically.
To analyze the world philosophically and make sense of it, we must assume that the cosmos is intelligible. Otherwise, we could not take a further step in the process. What do I mean by that? We assume that there is a certain order to the world that reason can comprehend. All Greek philosophers made this assumption. They not only recognized it but marveled at it.
That the world is ordered seems obvious, but it cannot be proven. It is a basic assumption—the basic assumption of philosophy, a “given,” if you will. To elaborate, we can say several things. The world is not an illusion. It is not magical. Most importantly, especially in light of modernism, it is directly accessible to our minds.
The world is not an illusion; it is real. The world is not “magical,” where things happen for no particular reason or without cause. And the world is directly accessible to our minds. If we say that the reality of the world is not accessible to our minds, as Kant did, then the world becomes unintelligible, which would render both philosophy and science impossible. This is why the Neo-Kantian movement of the 19th century attempted to soften Kant’s ideas.
Again, we assume these things about the world, but we cannot prove them. The fact that we assume the world is intelligible is a non-negotiable assumption. The stance regarding the intelligibility of the world in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition is called Philosophical Realism.
Three Principle Laws of Intelligibility
Three principles flow out of philosophical realism, the fundamental assumption that the world is intelligible. These three principles are: 1) the Principle of Identity, 2) the Principle of Non-Contradiction, and 3) the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
The Principle of Identity
This principle is composed of two parts that state: 1) there is a diversity of existing beings, each with its wholeness and unity, and 2) each being has an identity; each being is a this or a that.
- Diversity of Existing Beings, each with its wholeness and unity: This principle states that we sense unity and wholeness within ourselves. We also perceive other beings having a similar unity and wholeness. This can apply to my dog or a glass of water on the counter.
- Each being has an identity, a this or a that: There is a diversity of beings, and each being is this kind of being or that kind of being. Separate beings have separate identities, whether it is this idea, that dog, or that planet. We attach a label to each separate being because each one has a unique identity.
What about the person who thinks that everything is an illusion and that all things are one? We must reject this position outright because it is contrary to the intelligibility of the world. We believe that our sense experience gives us access to reality.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
Aristotle was the first major defender of this proposition. He said, “No real being can both be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect.” Aristotle viewed this as fundamental. He believed that if someone rejected this, meaningful conversation would be impossible. This reflects our modern culture, especially with Wokeism. It explains the frustration in conversing with those who hold contradictory ideas simultaneously. This principle applies to ideas and language as well. In language, we assert that “No proposition can be both asserted and denied at the same time and under the same aspect.” If this were not true, all language would become meaningless, reducing humans, as Aristotle said, to “vegetables.” Another way of stating this law is: “A is A and not non-A.”
The Law of Sufficient Reason
“Every being has sufficient reason for its being, either in itself or in another.” This is a more precise articulation. A less formal way of stating the principle of sufficient reason is to say that every effect has a cause. Sufficient reason means the adequate explanation or grounds for a being’s existence. If a being does not have in itself a reason for its existence, then it must have its cause in another being. Essentially, this means that nothing “pops in and out of existence without reason” or by “magic,” without explanation.
We don’t claim that all beings need an explanation or reason to exist. We accept that some beings may not need a reason for their existence outside of themselves. However, those beings must have existed forever. If not, then every finite being needs a cause. Another way of saying this is that being cannot come from non-being except by a cause.
Why do Metaphysics?
Indeed, metaphysics is not a practical discipline. We Americans have pragmatism woven into our DNA. We may ask, “What’s it good for then?” The answer goes back to my earlier statement. As beings in the universe, we desire to reach beyond ourselves. We want to transcend ourselves and learn about the beings we encounter. This includes other humans, dogs, trees, and even something as inanimate as a shiny stone on a hiking path.
We look up to the heavens and want to learn about the cosmos. Also, we seek knowledge of stars, planets, comets, and asteroids. We ask questions like, “Does the universe end, or is it infinite?” These questions stimulate our imaginations. They ultimately satisfy a deep longing to know. The short answer is that it fulfills an intellectual need we all possess.
Existence is the one thing, at minimum, that we share with everything else and what binds us together as one. Why not explore this fundamental truth to enrich ourselves to the point where we understand more profoundly not only the universe but also ourselves?
The mist of familiarity obscures from us the wonder of our being.
-Percy Shelly, English writer and poet
Please leave your comments below, and don’t forget to subscribe or press the follow button. Thank you!
Deo Gratias!
Bibliography:
Brower, Jeffrey E., Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World, ISBN-13 : 978-0198714293
Clarke, Norris W., S.J., The One and Many, A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics, ISBN-13 : 978-0268037079
Feser, Edward, Aristotle’ Revenge, The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science, ISBN-13 : 978-3868382006
Feser, Edward, Scholastic Metaphysics, A Contemporary Introduction, ISBN-13 : 978-3868385441