the history of the concept of the history of the concept of METAPHYSICSMETAPHYSICS

■■ First problem of Western philosophy :First problem of Western philosophy :““origin of everythingorigin of everything”” : metaphysics is : metaphysics is the science which investigates the ultimate ground the science which investigates the ultimate ground of absolutely everything. of absolutely everything. Hence - metaphysics proposes a Hence - metaphysics proposes a finalfinal answer to a answer to a totaltotal problem. problem.

■■ PRESOCRATICSPRESOCRATICS - shared the common - shared the common conviction that somehow conviction that somehow behind the bewildering multiplicity of appearances the universe is one, bound together in bonds , bound together in bonds of unity. of unity.

The first question they asked wasThe first question they asked was: : What do all things have in common, that which What do all things have in common, that which makes the universe one?makes the universe one? What is the common element in all things? What What is the common element in all things? What are all things made out of?are all things made out of?

QUESTION OF ORIGIN

HeraclHeraclitusitus

focuses on the intelligibility of process or change

all things in our cosmos are in a constant pro- cess of flux logos or law - the immanent stable law govern- ing the sequence of changes and bringing order into change what makes change intelligible?

breaks through to the ultimate breaks through to the ultimate universal universal concept and attribute of all things, concept and attribute of all things, beingbeing itself itself radical orientation of radical orientation of thoughtthought to to being: only being: only being, what is, can be thought being, what is, can be thought all ingredients of the all ingredients of the REALREAL, thus , thus being itself, being itself, is conceived as a concrete single is conceived as a concrete single thing. thing. hence, the elimination of all hence, the elimination of all difference, difference, change is an illusion change is an illusion!!

PParmenidearmenidess

Plato Two-World Two-World View of View of RealityReality

SensiblSensible e RealmRealm

Realm Realm of of IdeasIdeas

came to this realization came to this realization through two ways:through two ways: reacting against the reacting against the Sophists and the Sophists and the relativization of truth relativization of truth (knowledge / morality not (knowledge / morality not pos-sible!) pos-sible!) truths, then, must be truths, then, must be immuta-ble, immuta-ble, if truth exists and is if truth exists and is immuta-ble, it can only be immuta-ble, it can only be about immuta-ble objects. about immuta-ble objects. since truth is about the since truth is about the real, real, beingbeing, it follows that , it follows that true true beingbeing must itself, as must itself, as the object of truth, be the object of truth, be immutable, ever self-immutable, ever self-identical to itself. identical to itself.

the world of ideas is the realm of true being. They are truly real bec-ause they remain always self-identical and unchanging. To be is to be im-mutable, always the same, hence the ground of truth.

The world of sense perception therefore, of changing particulars, is not the truly real, but a dim shadowy image, participation of it, only half real, the realm of opinion and not truth.

HeraclituHeraclituss

Parmenides

Aristotle

Agrees with PlatoAgrees with Plato: there must be truth; reality is intelligible; truth is immutable, universal, necessary.

Disagrees with PlatoDisagrees with Plato: in locating the ideas or forms, and in locating the truly real. It is this sensible world of human experience which is clearly real.

The really real is the particular - SUBSTANCE.

■■ SubstanceSubstance is that which is that which exists in itself and not in exists in itself and not in another.another.

■■ The “The “this-beingthis-being” that is the ” that is the ultimate subject of attribution ultimate subject of attribution (of which all other predicates (of which all other predicates are predicated).are predicated).

AristotAristotlele

Aristotle took the word “metaphysics” in several different senses: A first meaning was that metaphysics simply was the science of the suprasensible. However, since, he derived the knowledge of the supra-sensible from the knowledge of sense objects, he arrived at a second meaning of metaphysics: it is the science of the causes of all things, material, formal, efficient and final.

Third conception: science of beingbeing as beingsbeings. Thus the object of metaphysics is all reality visible and invisible: whatever exists. It investigates all realities insofar as they are beings, it tries to dis-cover what belongs to them in their quality of beings.

SUPRASENSIBLSUPRASENSIBLEE

CAUSES OF ALL CAUSES OF ALL THINGSTHINGS

WHATEVER WHATEVER EXISTSEXISTS

AristotAristotlele The four CAUSESCAUSES or principles of

explanation: MATERIAL CAUSEMATERIAL CAUSE: that out of which something is made (raw material);FORMAL CAUSEFORMAL CAUSE: that in a thing which makes it to be such a thing (this kind of thing);EFFICIENT CAUSEEFFICIENT CAUSE: that by which some- thing is made, the active agent;FINAL CAUSEFINAL CAUSE: that for the sake of which something is done, the goal or purpose.

SUPRASENSIBLSUPRASENSIBLEE

CAUSES OF ALL CAUSES OF ALL THINGSTHINGS

WHATEVER WHATEVER EXISTSEXISTS

St. Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics has threefold object: beings as beings, the first principles of beings, and suprasensible beings, especially GOD as cause of all beings.

The immediate object of metaphysics is beings as beings. However, every science must investigate the causes of its object. In the case of beings as beings, these causes may be the extrinsic or intrinsic causes of each particular being: existence and essence, form and matter, EFFICIENT and FINAL causes.

This conception of metaphysics was held by all Scholastic philosophers.

Aristotle’s metaphysics – the study of the real requires the study their causes.4 Causes – Formal – that in a being that makes it to be such, this kind of being; Material – that in a being out of which it is made; Efficient – that which by its action makes a being to be; Final – that for the sake of which something is made or done.

Neo-Platonic Theory of Participation –Where many beings are found to be – intrinsically similar in that they share some one perfection common to all yet are diverse (dissimilar), (1) this common perfection of similarity cannot find its adequate sufficient reason in these many participants precisely as many and diverse.(2) The only adequate sufficient reason for this common sharing must be some one unitary source from which this common perfection derives.(3) What all beings share in common is the act of existence itself. Hence, all beings necessarily point back to one single ultimate source of existence itself.

Thomistic Synthesis: Aristotle’s concern with change, Aquinas transformed into the question of existence: God is both efficient and final cause of all beings. Relation between beings and Being is conceptualized in terms of the Neo-Platonic theory of Participation.

Aquinas existentialized both Aristotle and Plato to show that all beings not only come from God as their First Cause but also return to Him as to their perfect-ion as the Final Cause.

EFFICIENT EFFICIENT CAUSECAUSE

FINAL FINAL CAUSECAUSE

Christian Wolff:

Equated metaphysics with theoretical philosophy, thus considerably widening its object. He distinguished further between general metaphysics and special meta-physics. The former, also called ONTOLOGYONTOLOGY, is the basic philosophical discipline, which investigates being as such (traditional conception of metaphysics).

However, he held that the real task of metaphysics is to deduce, from clearly defined concepts and axioms, the statements which apply to every possible object of thought. In this way, metaphysics no longer is a real study of being, but a mere formal doctrine of axioms or principles. It is no longer rooted in being.

And soAnd so . . . . . .Wolff transformed the very notion of metaphysics. Wolff transformed the very notion of metaphysics. He defined philosophy as He defined philosophy as the science of all the science of all possible things, insofar as they are possiblepossible things, insofar as they are possible. He . He was inter-ested not in reality, but in mere was inter-ested not in reality, but in mere possibility as such. Possibility referred only to the possibility as such. Possibility referred only to the possibility of thinking or conceiving the objects possibility of thinking or conceiving the objects without contradiction. The question that arises, without contradiction. The question that arises, then, is whether the object of metaphysics is still then, is whether the object of metaphysics is still beings as beings, or whether it is the beings as beings, or whether it is the first first principles of knowledgeprinciples of knowledge, from which may be , from which may be deduced the rules that determine what mental deduced the rules that determine what mental contents are possible or contradictory.contents are possible or contradictory. Metaphysics studies not the real, but the Metaphysics studies not the real, but the possible. The doctrine of principles is totally possible. The doctrine of principles is totally separated from the doctrine of beings. separated from the doctrine of beings. Metaphysics has become a study of essences. Metaphysics has become a study of essences.

The foregoing The foregoing allows us to allows us to understand understand KANTKANT’s ’s position with position with respect to respect to METAPHYSICSMETAPHYSICS. . How is metaphysics How is metaphysics possible as a possible as a science?science?

KANT proceeded beyond both rationalism and empiricism.

Against rationalism, he maintained that universal and necessary principles cannot be merely analytic, that they must be synthetic, if they are to increase our knowledge; in other words, they must not merely explain what we know already, they must add something to our knowledge.But synthetic judgments, which must be universally and necessarily true, cannot derive from sense experience, cannot be, in the sense of empiricism, synthetic judgments a posteriori. Sense experience refers only to the singular and to the contingent.

Kant solved this problem by stating that there must exist judgments which are synthetic a priori, previous to experience, yet yielding really new knowledge.

IMMANUEL IMMANUEL KANTKANT

Thus the problem of the possibility of metaphysics be-comes the problem of the possibility of judgments that are synthetic a priori.

Thus we must turn our attention away from the object to our knowledge of it, or, as Kant put it, “to our way of knowing objects, insofar as this should be possible a priori.”

RECALL:

The problem about the possibility of metaphysics involved the problem of whether or not there exists SYNTHETIC A SYNTHETIC A PRIORIPRIORI (prior to experience yet yielding really new) knowledge.

IMMANUEL IMMANUEL KANTKANT

Thus we must turn our attention away from the object to our knowledge of it, or, as Kant put it, “to our way of knowing objects, insofar as this should be possible a priori.”

This is the turn to the TRANSCENDEN-TAL METHOD. For Kant it meant a pass-age from the conditioned to the condi-tion, from the object of experience to pure reason which determines this object. Thus metaphysics turns into transcen-dental philosophy. It is “pure knowl-edge of reason from mere concepts.” “Metaphysics is a logic of the pure in-tellect.” “It comprises the a priori con-cepts and principles which bring toge-ther the multiplicity of empirical repre-sentations so as to make them into empirical knowledge, into experience.”

KanKantt

Martin Martin HeideggeHeidegge

rr

Insists that the whole of Western metaphysics has always been interested in beings, not in the being of beings, in the relation of truth of our minds to these beings, truth conceived as conformity of our minds with what these beings are. But it has forgotten something deeper, underlying and rendering possible all such conformity: the very Being of beings, i.e., the ontological shining forth of beings to this consciousness of man, the process of aletheia or passage from concealment to unconcealment, upon which any subsequent relation of conformity must depend as its ground.

Metaphysics, he says, is an ONTIC, not an ONTOLOGICAL, way of thinking because it pays no attention to the ontological difference between beings and being.

A real difference between beings is an ONTIC difference. ONTIC difference refers to the difference between two beings.ONTOLOGICAL: This is the fundamental difference or distinction between beings and Being itself, i.e., Being is not reducible to any of the particular beings in which it is immanent; it transcends each one in its immanent omnipresence.

► ► Because metaphysics has forgotten Because metaphysics has forgotten being in behalf of the beings, it is being in behalf of the beings, it is characterized by characterized by SeinsvergessenheitSeinsvergessenheit, or , or ““oblivion of beingoblivion of being.”.”

► ► Recovery of metaphysicsRecovery of metaphysics: : It must consider and firmly establish It must consider and firmly establish being as that through which all beings being as that through which all beings are beings.are beings.The question of being must first turn The question of being must first turn towards man, for more than all other towards man, for more than all other beings, man, as beings, man, as DaseinDasein (being-there), (being-there), excels in the comprehension of being. excels in the comprehension of being. ““Man stands in the openness Man stands in the openness

of being.”of being.”

Man’s fundamental nature and role, what characteristically defines Man’s fundamental nature and role, what characteristically defines him as distinct from other beings, among which he lives in a him as distinct from other beings, among which he lives in a common world is that he dwells in the midst of beings as a common world is that he dwells in the midst of beings as a DaseinDasein (a there-being), as one who can receive the revelation of beings (a there-being), as one who can receive the revelation of beings through the light of their Being, draw this Being together into unity through the light of their Being, draw this Being together into unity and speak it out as a and speak it out as a logoslogos (in the rich ancient meaning of idea- (in the rich ancient meaning of idea-word). word).

This is This is onto-logy. Man is the being that bears witness to . Man is the being that bears witness to BeingBeing, , gives voice to Being through the gives voice to Being through the logoslogos. His fundamental privilege, . His fundamental privilege, responsibility, vocation, is to do onto-logy, the responsibility, vocation, is to do onto-logy, the speaking out of speaking out of BeingBeing. Thus Being needs man, in order to have its self-revelation . Thus Being needs man, in order to have its self-revelation received and spoken out in conscious awareness; and reciprocally received and spoken out in conscious awareness; and reciprocally man needs Being, since he must receive, listen to, the revelation of man needs Being, since he must receive, listen to, the revelation of what really is, not construct it wholly out of his own vitals.what really is, not construct it wholly out of his own vitals.

Heidegger’s summary judgment of Western philosophy may be unfair to some of the greatest thinkers within this tradition, he nevertheless points to real problems and tasks which the methodical reconstruction of metaphysics, on the basis of past experience, cannot afford to ignore. Since the time of Aristotle, classic metaphysics has considered as its object “beings as beings.” This formula mentions only the beings, not the being of beings. But to consider being as beings means to consider in them that which is common to all of them, which makes them into beings, namely, being. The fact that the classic definition mentions only the beings, not their being, as the object of metaphysics, intimates that being as such is never given to us as an object, that it reveals itself to us only in the beings whose ground it is.

No thinker of the past has been more clearly aware of the ontological difference than Thomas Aquinas, nobody has more clearly distinguished between beings (ens) and being (esse), or interpreted beings more consistently in the light of being.