[PPR] 形而上学的问题比科学的问题更基本吗?

Alyssa Ney (UC Davis), “Are the Questions of Metaphysics More Fundamental Than Those of Science?”, forthcoming in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpr.12571

Abstract

When pursued naturalistically, metaphysics may seem forced to navigate a narrow path. So that it may be a worthwhile enterprise, it must have claim to discovery of a distinctive set of objective truths. Yet it must also avoid potential competition or conflict with the results of scientific theories. In response to this problem, some naturalistic metaphysicians have argued that properly understood, metaphysics is aimed at a set of truths distinct from those of science. Metaphysicians investigate a realm of truths more fundamental than those of even fundamental science. This paper examines what is required both in science and metaphysics for a theory to count as a fundamental theory. Several criteria are presented which suggest that metaphysics does not investigate a realm more fundamental than that of science.

2赞

看到这个让我想起我最近和学生聊起的一个话题:
我读硕士的时候读过一篇文章,谁写的写啥的我都忘了,就记得其中有一句话,大概是we must settle our metaphysics before we deal with epistemology。我当时看了就觉得特别惊讶,因为我一直觉得我们当然应该先settle epistemology然后再聊metaphysics,不然我们咋知道metaphysics是什么样的。
我就跟当时的一个同学表达了这个惊讶,他则对我的惊讶表示了惊讶。他说他和这个作者一样一直认为需要先做好metaphysics然后才能做epistemology。
后来这个同学做了metaphysics,我做了phil of science。所以我一直以为metaphysics-oriented philosophers都去做了metaphysics然后epistemology-oriented philosophers都做了phil of science。
但后来在phil science也遇到了一些metaphysics-oriented的人,让我打消了这个念头。
但是,anyway,我觉得比起问一个哲学家是更rationalist还是更empiricist,这个区别更substantive :joy:

1赞

wow 我的反应(大概也是大部分moral social philosopher的想法)是I cannot care less about core M&E, I just want to know how should we live our lives.

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT??
LOLL M&E之外的当然就不会这样划分啦

LOL 一种回应是 I don’t know (and I may never know) I just live on what I argued to be right

可能还有第三种观点,就是并不是说一定要 settle Metaphysics or Epistemology 才能进行另外一个。 这两个的关系就好像 Biology 和 Philosophy of biology. 你并不需要 settle 所有的 philosophy of biology (Epistemology) 才能做出来好的 Biology 的研究(Metaphysics).

Exactly what one should say about empiricism and metaphysics is a deep philosophical question in its own right, and it’s unlikely that anyone will decisively answer it anytime soon. But that shouldn’t, on its own, deter you from thinking about metaphysics. Philosophy is the one discipline in which questions about the value of that discipline are central questions within that very discipline. The philosopher must therefore live with uncertainty about whether her life’s work is ultimately meaningful—that is the cost of the breadth of reflection demanded by philosophy. Philosophy’s reflective nature is generally a good thing, but the down side is that it can lead to paralysis. Don’t let it. You don’t need to have answers to all meta-questions before you can ask first-order questions (just as you don’t need to sort out the philosophy of biology before doing good work in biology.) The meta-questions are certainly important. But the history of philosophy is full of sweeping theories saying that this or that bit of philosophy is impossible. Take heart in the knowledge that these have all failed miserably.

–Ted Sider (2007), “Introduction”, in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics.

天呐太准太真实了,我和朋友问题意识一致,然后我选了metaphysics的角度她选了phi of science :rofl:

我有个朋友跟我说,east coast vs. west coast phil of physics就是这个区别:east coast就是metaphysics oriented然后west coast就是epistemology oriented。

1赞

哇捕捉!两个大陆居然同时了!! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
诶感觉这个还挺重要的,如果申请的时候是不是要考虑一下下这个因素?(如果单去系里翻老师的profile能知道这种差别吗,还是说这种类似学派的东西是隐性的只能口口相传2333

是挺重要的。从物哲的角度讲,我的理解就是两岸互看不顺眼(听过多起两岸的导师跟自己的学生说不要去对方那边读书的故事)。
翻profile大概是看不出区别的,毕竟我系的博弈论大牛网站上写的兴趣是metaphysics(他可能四十年前做过metaphysics吧)。这种就都需要network和gossip了。不过话说回来,如果申请之前不再圈内,可能申到哪边也不是特别重要?

啊这么严重的嘛(´・Д・)」震惊qwq 可是我自己的感觉是这两种其实不是特别可分(或许是我最近兴趣点在feminist,没那么natural science)比如我感兴趣的是偏gender essentialism,似乎既可以从有没有一个gender nature讨论,也可以从social epistemology来讨论为什么大家有这种我们似乎有个性别本质的intuition (我才刚开始看可能表述的很不准确)我还是想去metaphysics主导的吧,但是我应该不算圈内(圈这个说法让我瑟瑟发抖仿佛回到国内被学阀支配的恐惧bushi…)总之谢谢学姐的信息! :blush:

我说的这个只限于phil physics哈……别的都不适用。
另:很多时候这个区别是无意识的,也不会被认为是这个区别。比如说我看metaphysics主导的文章,我觉得它写的就是不好,论证不严谨,目标不明确。所以我看这些人的work我就觉得不行。我估计他们看我的work也会觉得不好。是从这个角度“互看不顺眼”,而不是我心里想着“他们是做metaphysics的他们肯定不行”。

1赞

嗯嗯明白了~thx! XD :blush:

有个困惑,metaphysics与phenomenology的区别和联系是什么呀?还是说phenomenology是metaphysics的大类下的?

metaphysics是一个领域,phenomenology是研究这个领域的一个方法,包括对领域应该怎么研究的一个看法。
类似“phil of mind”和“dualism”的区别吧

啊 这么一说就懂了…谢谢!