Meditation 118: Purely Theoretical Metaphysics

Some metaphysical beliefs are practical. Believing in the existence of God, an immortal soul or freewill do have practical consequences for a person's life. However, are they all like this? Does it make a difference to someone's life to form beliefs about such topics as 'metaphysical substance', the reality of universals, the Absolute, abstract objects, realism or idealism, space and time or the relation of parts to whole and so on? Does it matter whether one tends towards rationalism or empiricism, dogmatism or skepticism? Will it matter if one takes a parsimonious (minimalist)  view of metaphysics or prefers a more full blown theory? The literature can be daunting and technical, and it is hard to see how answering certain metaphysical questions matters in any practical sense.

Take one's metaphysical view of time. Does it really matter what one decides, for example, about the reality of time? What if time, in itself, is unreal? Are there any practical consequences for the person who believes this? Suppose I believe, for example, that time is unreal and that there is one giant present that contains all times? Does this mean I was not born and will not die? Does it change how my bank feels about my monthly mortgage payments? Can I forget about my will or funeral arrangements? We experience the passage of time, if only in the sense of noticing the changes that happen to the face one sees in the mirror from year to year. As Heidegger tells us, we exist in the world as beings-toward-a-future-and-an-end. We cannot help it. It does not matter what the truth is about the reality of time as a metaphysical theory.

                                              

What about questions about relations of parts and wholes (mereology)? It turns out that the question of the nature of parts and wholes is complex and multifaceted. Consider some variations. The bill is part of a baseball cap. The lid is part of the jar. This bag of gold only contains a part of what I found at the mine. The first movement was the best part of the symphony. The premiss is part of an argument. Tequila is part of a margarita.  Analyzing and systematizing what we want to say about these sorts of examples is the job of mereology.

In addition, there are the questions that arise in fuzzy borderland situations. What are the parts of a cloud? What about baldness? How many hairs have to fall out before a person is bald? Are loose hairs that are about to fall out still part of a head of hair.  Hard to say. How many grains of sand do you need before you have a heap? Can we give an exact specification?

All these are ingenious and complex questions which one could study for a long time. In fact, one could spend the whole of one's life worrying about parts and wholes. However, can taking a stance on these theoretical questions have practical consequences for a person's life? Perhaps if one became overly obsessive about the subject, it would ultimately lead to homelessness.  Other than that I cannot think what it would matter to come to various conclusions about the truth of one theory or another.

Another candidate for a purely theoretical debate is the one about Realism or Nominalism on the question of Universals. What does it matter whether properties subsist in themselves or are conventionally assigned meanings? However we decide this, we still have to carry on living our lives in contexts in which is does not matter whether properties are real or conventional. Philosophy had to get its reputation for being useless from somewhere.

Again, at first glance the question of 'metaphysical substance'  might seem completely speculative and theoretical. Everyone knows that there are kinds of things in the world even without the abstract idea of substance. The word does not have to be in one's vocabulary to understand the objects one uses everyday. 'Metaphysical Substance' is a reflective confection made up by philosophers who want to think about thinking. This is fine, but what practical difference does it make to how one lives one's life? Perhaps the answer is that the difference it makes is the incorporation into one's life of reading, writing and talking about metaphysical questions. Maybe time spent in metaphysical speculations will keep a person out of bars.

Nevertheless, there may be a problem with the purely speculative status of thinking about 'metaphysical substance.' The question is whether there is some underlying Reality that is somehow obscured by Appearances, some substratum that hold up the phenomenal world. The connection that matters here is whether one believes in a 'Soul Substance' that can continue to exist despite all appearances that death is the end. Here we are back with the constellation metaphysical questions whose answers have existential implications for the person who adopts them.

Finally, looking wider, it may be that metaphysical questions that seem to be purely theoretical do have practical consequences in other areas. For example, adopting views about universals that go against scientific investigation might have negative implications for our understanding. Adopting a skeptical and critical metaphysics might spur the growth of knowledge.  There may, in fact, be practical reasons for preferring one 'theoretical' metaphysical view over another.