Philosophy+Branches,+Metaphysics

=Metaphysics= (The study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation.) (Return to Basic Philosophy ) Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms: A person who studies metaphysics would be called either a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, including existence, the definition of object, property, space, time, causality, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
 * 1) "What is there?"
 * 2) "What is it like?"

Etymology
The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words //μετά (metá) // ("beyond" or "after") and //φυσικά (physiká) // ("physics"). It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix //meta- // ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "Metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy." The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, //Physics //, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (//ta meta ta physika biblia //) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical". However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature (//phusis // in Greek)," that is, the science of the immaterial. Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences would mean, those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas Aquinas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1). There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature, which replicates this error, i.e. that metaphysical means spiritual non-physical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies that are not physical. **History**

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The first known philosopher, according to Aristotle, is Thales of Miletus. He taught that all things derive from a single first cause or //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Arche // (origin or beginning), and that this first cause was in fact moisture, frequently translated "water." Thales also taught that the world is harmonious, has a harmonious structure, and thus is intelligible to rational understanding. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Other Miletians, such as Anaximander and Anaximenes, also had a monistic conception of the first cause. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Parmenides of Elea held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are illusory. The true underlying reality is that “all is one”. From this concept of a single unitary Being, Parmenides went on to say that non-Being is logically impossible, and therefore change is in fact impossible. In spite of these counter-intuitive claims, Parmenides is considered one of the founders of metaphysics, because he introduced the method of basing claims about appearances on a logical concept of Being. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Scientific questions in ancient Greece were addressed to metaphysicians, but by the 18th century, the skeptics' //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">How do you know? // led to a new branch of philosophy called //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">epistemology // (//<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">how // we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (//<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">what // we know) and this led to science (Latin //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">to know //) and to the scientific method (the precision of which is still being debated). Skepticism evolved epistemology out of metaphysics. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical inquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Metaphysics as a discipline was a central part of academic inquiry and scholarly education even before the age of Aristotle, who considered it "the Queen of Sciences." Its issues were considered no less important than the other main formal subjects of physical science, medicine, mathematics, poetics and music. Since the beginning of modern philosophy during the seventeenth century, problems that were not originally considered within the bounds of metaphysics have been added to its purview, while other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically subjects of their own separate regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of science proper (cf. the theory of Relativity).

Additional questions and Debate on the Matter
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Most positions that can be taken with regards to any of the following questions are endorsed by one or another notable philosopher. It is often difficult to frame the questions in a non-controversial manner. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Empirical and Conceptual Objects ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Objects and their properties ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as love and the number 3; the former objects are called particulars. Particulars are said to have attributes, e.g. size, shape, color, location and two particulars may have some such attributes in common. Such attributes, are also termed Universals or Properties; the nature of these, and whether they have any real existence and if so of what kind, is a long-standing issue, realism and nominalism representing opposing views. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Metaphysicians concerned with questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. Some, e.g. Plato, argue that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. David Armstrong holds that universals exist in time and space but only at their instantiation and their discovery is a function of science. Others maintain that what particulars are is a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have). <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Abstract objects and mathematics ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Nominalism, Platonism, and Philosophy of mathematics <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Some philosophers endorse views according to which there are abstract objects such as numbers, or Universals. (Universals are properties that can be instantiated by multiple objects, such as redness or squareness.) Abstract objects are generally regarded as being outside of space and time, and/or as being causally inert. Mathematical objects and fictional entities and worlds are often given as examples of abstract objects. The view that there really are no abstract objects is called nominalism. Realism about such objects is exemplified by Platonism. Other positions include moderate realism, as espoused by Aristotle, and conceptualism. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The philosophy of mathematics overlaps with metaphysics because some positions are realistic in the sense that they hold that mathematical objects really exist, whether transcendentally, physically, or mentally. Platonic realism holds that mathematical entities are a transcendent realm of non-physical objects. The simplest form of mathematical empiricism claims that mathematical objects are just ordinary physical objects, i.e. that squares and the like physically exist. Plato rejected this view, among other reasons, because geometrical figures in mathematics have a perfection that no physical instantiation can capture. Modern mathematicians have developed many strange and complex mathematical structures with no counterparts in observable reality, further undermining this view. The third main form of realism holds that mathematical entities exist in the mind. However, given a materialistic conception of the mind, it does not have the capacity to literally contain the many infinities of objects in mathematics. Intuitionism, inspired by Kant, sticks with the idea that "there are no non-experienced mathematical truths". This involves rejecting as intuitionistically unacceptable anything that cannot be held in the mind or explicitly constructed. Intuitionists reject the law of the excluded middle and are suspicious of infinity, particularly of transfinite numbers. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Other positions such as formalism and fictionalism that do not attribute any existence to mathematical entities are anti-realist.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Cosmology and cosmogony ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Cosmology (metaphysics) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Metaphysical Cosmology ** is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern times it addresses questions about the Universe beyond the scope of physical science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. dialectics). **<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Cosmogony ** deals specifically with the origin of the universe. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Modern metaphysical cosmology and cosmogony try to address questions such as:
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism, pantheism, emanationism and creationism)
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see teleology)

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;"><span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Determinism and free will <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Determinism and Free will <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. It holds that no random, spontaneous, stochastic, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. The principal consequence of the deterministic claim is that it poses a challenge to the existence of free will. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The problem of free will is the problem of whether rational agents exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. Some philosophers, known as Incompatibilists, view determinism and free will as mutually exclusive. If they believe in determinism, they will therefore believe free will to be an illusion, a position known as //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Hard Determinism //. Proponents range from Baruch Spinoza to Ted Honderich. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Others, labeled Compatibilists (or "Soft Determinists"), believe that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled. Adherents of this view include Thomas Hobbes and many modern philosophers. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Incompatibilists who accept free will but reject determinism are called Libertarians, a term not to be confused with the political sense. Robert Kane is a modern defender of this theory. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">It is believed that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism). Determinists believe a human being's future depends on present and past events beyond the individual's influence. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Quantum physics ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics believe that Determinism was proven incorrect with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that certain corresponding physical quantities (such as position and momentum, energy and time, eigenstates of spin in non-parallel directions) cannot be determined simultaneously to an arbitrarily small error. For example, the more precisely a particle's position is measured, the less precisely one can know its momentum from the same measurement. If the momentum is more precisely measured to account for this, the uncertainty in the position will rise. This counter-intuitive result is a consequence of the wave-like behavior of subatomic particles. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is thus a statement providing an inverse correlation between the uncertainties of certain corresponding measurements. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">This line of reasoning has led physicists to develop Quantum field theory and use the "wave function" to describe physical systems. While differential equations govern the evolution of the wave function, the wave function itself only specifies the probability of an event to be measured. Thus, while the evolution of the wave function is deterministic, the history of a particle is not. The widely held view amongst physicists regards the apparent determinism of Newtonian dynamics, for example, as the limiting behavior of inherently probabilistic phenomena. Classical physics is then considered a convenient and sufficiently accurate description of nature only at macroscopic scales. A large enough scale is usually thought of as much larger than the Compton wavelength of the object considered. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Alternative interpretations of quantum theory, such as de Broglie–Bohm theory and the many-worlds interpretation, provide a deterministic theoretical framework that is consistent with empirical observation of quantum mechanical phenomena. Notable physicists, such as Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, never believed that Quantum Mechanics was a fundamental theory. Einstein is famous for believing that while Quantum Mechanics provided good experimental predictions, it should ultimately be replaced with a deterministic theory that could account for the seemingly probabilistic nature of the atomic regime. In a letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote, "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. **<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">I, at any rate, am convinced that //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">He // does not throw dice. **" This quote is commonly paraphrased **<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">"God does not play dice" ** or **<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">"God does not play dice with the universe" **, and other slight variants. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Though there remains skepticism, there is a scientific consensus that the laws of Quantum Mechanics correctly describe the universe up to current experimental bounds, and that it is necessary for the very consistency of the subject that it be probabilistic in nature (see Bell's Theorem).

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Identity and change ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Main article: Identity and change <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Identity (philosophy) and Philosophy of space and time <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The Greeks took some extreme positions on the nature of change: Parmenides denied that change occurs at all, while Heraclitus thought change was ubiquitous: "[Y]ou cannot step into the same river twice". <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Identity, sometimes called Numerical Identity, is the relation that a "thing" bears to itself, and which no "thing" bears to anything other than itself (cf. sameness). According to Leibniz, if some object //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">x ** // is identical to some object //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">y ** //, then any property that //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">x ** // has, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">y ** // will have as well. However, it seems, too, that objects can change over time. If one were to look at a tree one day, and the tree later lost a leaf, it would seem that one could still be looking at that same tree. Two rival theories to account for the relationship between change and identity are Perdurantism, which treats the tree as a series of tree-stages, and Endurantism, which maintains that the tree—the same tree—is present at every stage in its history. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Mind and matter ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Matter, Materialism, and Philosophy of mind <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The nature of matter was a problem in its own right in early philosophy. Aristotle himself introduced the idea of matter in general to the Western world, adapting the term //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">hyle //, which originally meant "lumber." Early debates centered on identifying a single underlying principle. Water was claimed by Thales, air by Anaximenes, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Apeiron // (the Boundless) by Anaximander, fire by Heraclitus. Democritus, in conjunction with his mentor, Leucippus, conceived of an atomic theory many centuries before it was accepted by modern science. It is worth noting, however, that the grounds necessary to ensure validity to the proposed theory's veridical nature were not scientific, but just as philosophical as those traditions espoused by Thales and Anaximander. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The nature of the mind and its relation to the body has been seen as more of a problem as science has progressed in its mechanistic understanding of the brain and body. Proposed solutions often have ramifications about the nature of mind as a whole. René Descartes proposed substance dualism, a theory in which mind and body are essentially different, with the mind having some of the attributes traditionally assigned to the soul, in the seventeenth century. This creates a conceptual puzzle about how the two interact (which has received some strange answers, such as occasionalism). Evidence of a close relationship between brain and mind, such as the Phineas Gage case, have made this form of dualism increasingly unpopular. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Another proposal discussing the mind-body problem is idealism, in which the material is sweepingly eliminated in favor of the mental. Idealists, such as George Berkeley, claim that material objects do not exist unless perceived and only as perceptions. The "German idealists" such as Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer took Kant as their starting-point, although it is debatable how much of an idealist Kant himself was. Idealism is also a common theme in Eastern philosophy. Related ideas are panpsychism and panexperientialism, which say everything //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">has // a mind rather than everything exists //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">in // a mind. Alfred North Whitehead was a twentieth-century exponent of this approach. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Idealism is a monistic theory that holds there is a single universal substance or principles. Neutral monism, associated in different forms with Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell, seeks to be less extreme than idealism, and to avoid the problems of substance dualism. It claims that existence consists of a single substance that in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes – thus it implies a dual-aspect theory. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">For the last one hundred years, the dominant metaphysics has without a doubt been materialistic monism. Type identity theory, token identity theory, functionalism, reductive physicalism, nonreductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, anomalous monism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism and emergence are just some of the candidates for a scientifically informed account of the mind. (It should be noted that while many of these positions are dualisms, none of them are //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">substance // dualism.) <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Prominent recent philosophers of mind include David Armstrong, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter, Jerry Fodor, David Lewis, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, John Searle, John Smart, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Fred Alan Wolf.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Necessity and possibility ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">See also: Modal logic and Modal realism <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Metaphysicians investigate questions about the ways the world could have been. David Lewis, in "On the Plurality of Worlds," endorsed a view called Concrete Modal realism, according to which facts about how things could have been are made true by other concrete worlds, just like ours, in which things are different. Other philosophers, such as Gottfried Leibniz, have dealt with the idea of possible worlds as well. The idea of necessity is that any necessary fact is true across all possible worlds; that is, we could not imagine it to be otherwise. A possible fact is true in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. For example, it is possible that cats could have had two tails, or that any particular apple could have not existed. By contrast, certain propositions seem necessarily true, such as analytic propositions, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried." The particular example of analytic truth being necessary is not universally held among philosophers. A less controversial view might be that self-identity is necessary, as it seems fundamentally incoherent to claim that for any //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">x ** //, it is not identical to itself; this is known as the //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">law of identity //, a putative "first principle". Aristotle describes the //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">principle of non-contradiction //, "It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing . . . This is the most certain of all principles . . . Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms."

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Religion and spirituality ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Theology is the study of a God or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a god (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Within the standard Western philosophical tradition, theology reached its peak under the medieval school of thought known as scholasticism, which focused primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. The work of the scholastics is still an integral part of modern philosophy, with key figures such as Thomas Aquinas still playing an important role in the philosophy of religion.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">**<span class="mw-headline" style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">-Space and time ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Further information: Philosophy of space and time <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">In Book XI of the Confessions, Saint Augustine of Hippo asked the fundamental question about the nature of time. A traditional realist position in ontology is that time and space have existence apart from the human mind. Idealists, including Kant, claim that space and time are mental constructs used to organize perceptions, or are otherwise surreal. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Suppose that one is sitting at a table, with an apple in front of him or her; the apple exists in space and in time, but what does this statement indicate? Could it be said, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is positioned? Suppose the apple, and all physical objects in the universe, were removed from existence entirely. Would space as an "invisible grid" still exist? René Descartes and Leibniz believed it would not, arguing that without physical objects, "space" would be meaningless because space is the framework upon which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. Newton, on the other hand, argued for an absolute "container" space. The pendulum swung back to relational space with Einstein and Ernst Mach. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">While the absolute/relative debate, and the realism debate are equally applicable to time and space, time presents some special problems of its own. The //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">flow // of time has been denied in ancient times by Parmenides and more recently by J. M. E. McTaggart in his paper //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The Unreality of Time //. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">The //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">direction // of time, also known as "time's arrow", is also a puzzle, although physics is now driving the debate rather than philosophy. It appears that fundamental laws are time-reversible and the arrow of time must be an "emergent" phenomenon, perhaps explained by a statistical understanding of thermodynamic entropy. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Common-sense tells us that objects //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">persist // across time, that there is some sense in which you are the same person you were yesterday, in which the oak is the same as the acorn, in which you perhaps even can step into the same river twice. Philosophers have developed two rival theories for how this happens, called "endurantism" and "perdurantism". Broadly speaking, endurantists hold that a whole object exists at each moment of its history, and the same object exists at each moment. Perdurantists believe that objects are four-dimensional entities made up of a series of temporal parts like the frames of a movie.

The Value and Future of Metaphysics
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">A number of individuals have suggested that metaphysics as a whole should be rejected. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">David Hume argued with his empiricist principle that all knowledge involves either relations of ideas or matters of fact: > <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? // No. //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? // No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">— David Hume, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding // <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">However, Hume's assertion may be self-defeating if it itself is not self-evident or empirically verifiable. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Immanuel Kant prescribed a limited role to the subject and argued against knowledge progressing beyond the world of our representations, except to knowledge that the //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">noumena // exist: > <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">— Immanuel Kant, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Critique of Pure Reason // pp. Bxxvi-xxvii <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Proceeding from Kant's statement about antinomy, A.J. Ayer in //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Language, Truth and Logic // using the verifiability theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views. However, Karl Popper argued that metaphysical statements are not //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">meaningless // statements, but rather not //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">fallible //, //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">testable // or //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">provable // statements i.e. neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">idea // about the world or about the universe, which may be reasonable but is ultimately not empirically testable. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Rudolf Carnap, in his book //<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Philosophy and Logical Syntax //, used the concept of verifiability to reject metaphysics. > <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">— Rudolf Carnap <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">John Locke, a founder of empiricism, expressed that most of the doctrine of innate ideas in the metaphysics, such as Cartesian dualism and the Platonic realm were ridiculous and nonsensical. __**Traditional Branches**__: Cosmology Ontology

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: auto;">(<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0000ff; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: auto;">Return to Basic Philosophy )