Exploring the Basics of Metaphysics: Ontology, First Cause, and Change

Hello Dazzle! Thanks for coming and hanging out with me today, I’m glad that you are here. Today I want to talk some about metaphysics. First, I want to say that this is a HUGE topic. There is no good way to define what is and is not included within the realm of metaphysics. Because of that I just want to remind everyone that this is going to be looking at just the very basic ideas and even with keeping things down to what I consider the bare bones, this is a pretty large topic.

At its core the study of metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, of what exists in the world, what it is like, and how it is ordered.  Metaphysics attempts to answer large questions about the nature of the world and living. It looks at things that don’t change and yet are still difficult for us to fully understand.

It is important to note that metaphysics was born from the writings of Aristotle. He defined metaphysics as being about:

1. “being as such” (Ontology)
2. the first causes of things (First Cause)
3. that which does not change (Change)

But much has been added into metaphysics since Aristotle’s time, including:

1. Free Will
2. Personal Identity
3. Particulars and Universals
4. Why is there something rather then nothing?
5. Infinity Problem

These additions are explorations into ontology, first cause and change rather then dealing with the questions directly. But this doesn’t really make anything more clear. So let’s consider each of Aristotle’s areas separately.

1. Ontology

Ontology is tackling the idea of existence; as in, the fact that there is something in the universe rather then nothing. But how do you define existing? This is something that we generally take for granted and don’t think a lot about, but once you spend any amount of time considering the matter, it gets rather complex rather quickly.

What within this reality, actually exists? Is existence limited to the things that have presence within space and time? Or can things like numbers and ideas also exists? What about traits? Are colors and size their own thing or are these simply part of other things? Does the consciousness and thought exist? And what about the experiential knowledge of a thing? There is a difference between understanding that colors exist and seeing colors. Does the act of seeing the color exist separately from the color itself? Does gravity exist? Does the wind exist?

These questions demonstrate the singular question at the heart of ontology. There is much in the world that is readily agreed upon as existing. And I don’t think that anyone is out there arguing that existence isn’t a thing. But there is a great deal of things, that we know to be present in the world and yet we cannot sense them either. How much do we need to be able to interact with a thing in order for it to be considered existing? I know that other people have thoughts and their thoughts have a direct impact on the world, yet there is no way for me to see or interact with those thoughts. Do they actually exist? Does the ability to measure something count as being able to experience it? Such as being able to measure the wind and gravity?

Particulars and Universals demonstrates the way in which ontology struggles to define existence. Universals, like the color red, can exist at different locations at the same time and still be considered to be the same thing. This is not the case for particulars including individual persons or specific objects. Universals are aspects of particulars such as: color, size, make, model etc. Does the nature of smallness exist separately from a thing that is small? This is an idea that we can all summon up and understand. It is a label that we can easily understand and use. Does that mean that smallness exists? But Universals are also categories of things, like dogs and cats. When you see a dog or a cat, you know which group to put it into. There can be more then one dog or cat at a time. A particular is the individual dog that you have as a pet and have named Spot.

But there are problems with the acceptance of Spot existing too. Let’s consider a different example. If you break a leg on a chair, is it still the same chair? What if you replace that broken leg with a new leg? Does it become a new chair or does it continue to be the same chair. How much of the chair can be replaced before it stops being the same chair? This is the challenge with Personal Identity. We consider ourselves to be things with a clearly accepted existence. Yet we do not remain the infant that we entered the world as. How much can we grow and change before we need to be considered a different individual? What if we have a joint replacement or an organ replacement? How much of our bodies can be changed or replaced before we are no longer the same individual that we were previously?

Is all of this just a trick of language? After all, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Dogs and cats exist. We can see them and pet them. The name that we give them is irrelevant to their existence. Many other languages have many other names for these two animals. Yet, in every language, the same problem persists. How do we know the categories of things? In one sense, these are just arbitrary lines that we are drawing with our words. But in another, very real sense, we can all easily correctly categorize the things by their clearly shared properties. Does that mean that in some sense these categories exist beyond and outside our language?

2. First Cause

Does one event precede and cause another event? We have an intuitive sense that it does work this way. Knocking over a glass of water causes the water to spill onto the floor. Had the glass not been tipped, the water would not have been spilled. This principal of cause and effect has been well accepted and now lives as the foundation of science. But this idea creates a paradox: what was the first cause?

This question clearly and quickly illustrates the Infinity Problem. If every event is caused by something then the universe requires that there is always a time before. This means that time would have to stretch backwards into the past into infinity. If this is true, how can there be a beginning to our universe? How could there ever be a time that there was nothing? This leads to the idea that the universe must then have always had something which suggests that something also exists within infinity. Because what is beyond this galaxy? And the next galaxy? And the next?

The concept of infinite time and space is mind boggling enough, but the first cause also challenges the idea of free will. How can we be considered to have free will and to be making our own choices if everything within the universe functions within the realm of cause and effect. We do not choose our parents or the DNA that they give us or the way that they raise us. Yet it is generally understood that these things cause us to be who we are. If our choices and actions are driven by cause and effect we cannot have free will. If we do not have free will how can we be accountable for the actions that we take in our life time?

Is it just to lock someone in prison for murder if they have a mental illness or brain injury that caused them to do it? What about if they were abused badly as a child and this caused them to lack empathy which caused them to become a violent person?

Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken – both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions.
-Legal Information Institute.

Can a society have justice if there is no free will?

This idea of causation also raises the question of degree? Can causation come in degrees? Put another way, can events be caused by more then one thing at the same time? Holding with the previous example. Who we are would be generally considered multi-causal because it is dependent on on genes, our diet, events that happened in our life, how we are raised etc. Does this idea of degree leave room for free will? If our genes give us tendencies, does that mean that there is still room for us to make choices about our lives within the realms of those preferences and the contexts that life presents us?

3. Change

The concepts of time and space present us with the ever present reality of change. Observation of the universe suggests that almost everything changes. There seem to be somethings that don’t change and we consider these things to be constants. These include time and space as well as gravity. With the development of science, there have been more constants discovered. But largely, things change.

The first question this raises is: why? What is it about the nature of the universe that necessitates that things constantly change within it? Is time actually just the measurement of change? Or asked another way: if nothing in the universe ever changed in any way, would time still exist? Could the universe be “paused” or “stopped” in the same fashion as a movie? Could there be more then one “movie” playing?

When considering time, it is our sense of change that makes us feel that it moves in a linear fashion. We cannot change the past which is why we think of it as being behind us and inaccessible. We can act and change things within the present moment which makes us feel that this is the part of time that is mutable and living. We also can logically see that the actions that we take today can create change in the future. This gives us the sense that the future can also be changed and lies ahead of us. It is this sense of change that defines the way that we think about time.

Conclusion

Something that I want to make sure that you’ve noticed is that the topics that metaphysics tackles are many of the same topics that various fields of science are also tackling. Modern society often dismisses philosophy to being something that has little or no value, but it is important to understand that thinking about thinking is also at the heart of good science.

Many of the ideas within the realm of ontology are the same ideas that are tackled by scientists when they are considering the taxonomy of a species. Should a virus be considered alive? What is the difference between a plant and an animal? These are all questions well within the realm of ontology.

Questions of free will frequently come up in the realm of psychology and law when we consider the idea of someone’s legal capacity. Does having a disease like dementia mean that a person can no longer make decisions for themselves and that we should legally allow others to make choices on their behalf? Does having an illness that prevents someone from understanding the wrongfulness of their actions mean that they should not be held legally accountable for those actions?

Questions regarding the nature of time and space are the bread and butter of physics. In fact, one can argue that the science of physics grew out of philosophical thought. Ideas of the connection between time and space and the way that they impact matter has long been a subject of philosophy and now has a science that focuses on it.

With all of that said, philosophy and metaphysics in particular, is just as much about exploring the world and defining truth as science. I would argue that it is also just as valid. There are many areas that science cannot yet give us guidance and there are many areas that I don’t believe that it ever will be able to guide us. I think that one important thing that philosophy reminds is that that we can never really know. Metaphysics reminds us that in order for us to really know something to be true, we must be able to answer one of these two questions:

1. What do we know?
2. How do we know it?

When we know something to be true we can use that knowledge to develop a method to determine if other things are also true. If have a method of knowing we can use it to determine truths. This is the foundation of science. The problem is that you can only answer these questions by having the answer to the other question. You can only know you have a good method when you know something to be true. You can only know something to be true if you have a good method for examining the truth. This paradox points out that all knowledge (and all science) is always built upon assumptions that we must frequently return to and re-examine as we learn more things. It is philosophy that has thought us this principal of truth that has made our science so strong. This is why we never claim a thing to be proven but rather that we have a good body of evidence that a thing is true. This is why we have theories.

Metaphysics explores the nature of reality, existence, and causation, posing questions about the fundamental aspects of our world. These profound inquiries intersect with scientific disciplines, highlighting the importance of philosophical thought in guiding and shaping our understanding of the universe. Philosophy’s emphasis on the pursuit of truth serves as a fundamental underpinning for scientific exploration and discovery.

Well, that’s about it for my rambling today. Thanks for coming and spending some time with me. If you like my rambling then click on that like button. It really does help! Until we talk again, you take care of yourselves!