Wikipedia:Peer review/Metaphysics/archive1

Metaphysics

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PJW

Hi Phlsph7,

Great work as usual! It's nice, too, to see this one come in a little bit shorter than other similarly broad philosophy articles.

Hello Patrick and thanks for reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Always happy to weigh in! ;) --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions for your consideration:

• The term "rational intuition" appears in the lead, but I don't think it's defined until much later in the second paragraph of Methodology, where it is glossed as non-inferential impressions about the correctness of specific claims or general principles with supporting examples of thought experiments. The philosophical history of "intuition" is genuinely complicated, but this psychological definition is at odds with at least Kant's influential definition, according to which intuition is a necessary component of every thought whatsoever, not a particular kind of thought. The entry in Howard Caygill's Kant Dictionary, which traces the concept back to Aristotle, might be a useful resource—even if some of the background might be best relegated to a footnote. Also, the wikilink, wherever it first appears, should probably go more specifically to Intuition#Western_philosophy or else maybe to Anschauung.

In short, while I don't have a perfect solution for this, I think the article would benefit from further clarification about what qualifies an intuition as rational, especially since the ordinary English sense of the word refers to something individually subjective like a hunch or a gut feeling.

I followed your suggestion to add a footnote on different meanings of "intuition" in philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That helps—although I do still think many readers will balk at the idea of making inferences about the nature of reality from what is ordinarily considered a psychological state. (Call that a rational intuition!) The second paragraph of the Methodology section does address the issue, but not as head-on as I think might benefit the article. Still, if you don't see the need, and you intend to nominate this for FA status, it might make sense just to wait and see if anyone else shares this concern. --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• In the History section, I do not think that it is correct to say that Kant tried to reconceptualize metaphysics as a critical inquiry into the basic principles and categories of thought and understanding. The critical part of Kant's philosophy was a critique of traditional (Leibnizian-Wolffian) metaphysics intended to pave the way for a new metaphysics, which Kant did indeed present in works on natural and moral philosophy that are today rarely read by non-specialists. I don't think this article ought to go into those, but it shouldn't say that Kant's transcendental critiques are themselves metaphysics. (I'll gladly defer to Allen Wood if he says otherwise, but I'd look carefully at the wording in that source to be sure you're representing it accurately.) This quibble probably also applies to the mention of the transcendental method in the Methodologies section, although I have not checked the sources.

  I removed the association with Kant's critical philosophy. I think what is there should be supported by the sources, for example:

  • From Wood 2009, p. 354: Kant ... proposed to turn metaphysics into a science ... Kant's official definition of metaphysics is: "Synthetic a priori cognition from concepts".
  • From Hamlyn 2005, p. 592: In particular, Kant thought, objective experience can be seen to involve causality and principles of necessary connection ... All this, a sort of metaphysics of experience, can be regarded as a substitute for traditional metaphysics, which Kant thought of as ... involving an attempt to use reason beyond the boundaries to which it was properly limited.

  The part about the transcendental method in the section "Methodology" is not specifically directed at Kant despite Kant's influence on the development of this method. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, removing the identification of metaphysics with its critique addresses my primary concern. The article still reads to me as possibly too much like a metaphysical appropriation of the first Critique, as opposed to Kant's own insistence upon the preparatory status of that project, which he presents as distinct from metaphysics itself. For instance, the Hamlyn quote (at least in isolation) does not even profess to be a description of Kant's philosophy. It's written in the subjunctive and better describes the position of P. F. Strawson, already mentioned above, than it does Kant's own position. But I'll admit we're kind of splitting hairs here. It's probably fine until such a time as an actual Kant scholar might happen along with some more historically precise language. --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would need to check this, but I have some doubts about characterizing Husserl's phenomenological ontology as a form of metaphysics. In any event Heidegger's fundamental ontology is an explicit attack on the metaphysical tradition, which he deliberately sets out to destroy. This had an enormous impact on 20th-century European philosophy. For this reason, I would suggest moving the final sentences on Heidegger and Derrida up from the History section up and expanding them into a full paragraph in the Criticism section. This paragraph could also mention in more neutral language the manner in which for at least half of a century many philosophers were practically doing back-flips in their efforts to avoid metaphysical commitments with recourse to phenomenology (e.g., Sartre), the philosophy of language (e.g., Wittgenstein), philosophical hermeneutics (e.g., Ricoeur), and neo-pragmatism (e.g., Rorty). Heidegger is hardly responsible for all of this, but he's responsible for a lot of it.

  Husserl is discussed in McLean 2003 in the section "History of Metaphysics". According to a narrow conception restricting metaphysics to traditional metaphysics or to something inaccessible beyond the phenomena, mentioning Husserl here might be a problem, but this is not the standard view. Ontology is usually included in metaphysics. I added a paragraph to the criticism section on Heidegger and Derrida. I'm not sure whether this is undue because other philosophers don't get their own paragraph in this section but I kept the paragraph short and put it at the end so I hope it's fine. For now, I left their short summary in the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems find about Husserl. I don't think it's a problem that Heidegger and Derrida are mentioned by name in the Criticism section. It just that for some reason people on board with Heidegger's project are called Heideggerians instead of fundamental ontologists, and it's better to mention Derrida by name because a lot of deconstruction takes it object from the literary or cultural domains, rather than metaphysics. I would actually consider adding individual names and wikilinks to the other positions described, at least in those cases where there is a generally agreed upon founder or a particularly representative figure. It makes things more concrete and situates intellectual positions in history in a way that at least some readers will appreciate. --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For articles on very wide topics, I usually try to refer to broad movements instead of individual philosophers to keep the discussion on the more general aspects. I think mentioning Heidegger and Derrida should be fine in this case but I might have to come up with something else if someone complains. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That looks good. I could propose something that doesn't name individuals if that were to emerge as a problem, but I think this would be a departure from most RS. --Patrick (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would add a few sentences about Deleuze to the History section. He made an extended effort to re-inject metaphysics into the philosophical conversation in a way that many philosophers seem to find persuasive.

  I tried to stuff as much as possible into a single sentence on him. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• This section would also probably benefit from mention of some kind of specifically Marxist materialism. Disagreements among its proponents, however, (even with respect to basic vocabulary!) are so complicated and intense that I can't recommend anything specific. If you can turn up a good source without too much effort, though, it would be great to add—just to acknowledge the world-historical legacy of the philosophical tradition. (Edit: a search reveals that the term "materialism" does not appear at all in the body of the article. This strikes me as quite odd and may indicate a larger omission.)

  I can come up with something but I'm not sure that this is a good idea. As I understand it, Marx's materialism is more about society and its development then about a grand metaphysical vision.

  Materialism in general is discussed in the section Mind and free will. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I take your point. Capital earns it's subtitle, A Critique of Political Economy. Nevertheless, many readers will be familiar with the remark at the end of the Preface to the Second Edition about inverting Hegel back onto his feet, i.e., translating his idealism into materialism along the lines suggested by Ludwig Feuerbach and other Left Hegelians. I think that in Dialectics of Nature, a work I have not read, Engles was already generalizing Marx's own historical materialism in a more metaphysical direction. With respect to geopolitics and world history, I believe that the philosophical commitment to a materialist metaphysics is the theoretical reason that the Soviet Union and other communist states were officially atheist (hence, in the mid-century U.S., "godless commies"). The literature on all this, however, is enormous and frequently very polemical. If you have something drafted, I think it would likely improve the History section. If not, I'll try to keep it back of mind to suggest some specific language if I happen on anything appropriate. --Patrick (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Finally, jumping back up in the article, the material on computer science does not, in my judgment, make the case for its inclusion in this article. Totally fine if CS folks find an ontological vocabulary useful, but I don't see how the example of organizing a database involves any non-trivial metaphysical commitments. Unless this can be clarified, I would consider cutting that paragraph. It is perfectly fine and permissible to speak of hierarchies, kinds, sets, relations, and so forth without thereby instating an ontology in the philosophical sense that is everywhere else the topic of this article.

  The idea behind this paragraph is not so much that creating an ontology for a specific database is philosophically interesting but that this is an application to another discipline and one that is becoming more and more important. If you go in the direction of upper ontologies, it might even become philosophically interesting but the main focus is probably still on the applications rather than on understanding reality. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it still seems off-topic to me. But that is my only objection. I'm perfectly content for it to be worked out in FAR, should it even emerge there as an issue. --Patrick (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Late addition: Meta-metaphysics seems extremely niche for such a broad article. I would consider either cutting this paragraph or adding an example to illustrate its significance for a general audience. --Patrick (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I shortened the text to put less emphasis on it. There are interesting things to be said about it but that would put more emphasis on this field instead. I think it should be mentioned somewhere in this article and at the end of the branches section seems to be a good place. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the effort to shorten the section, but I would actually support restoring the sentence you cut if you are not going to remove the whole paragraph. It makes it explicit that most metaphysics – both today and historically – is already plenty "meta". Removing the sentence might create the appearance of a regress problem (for who's watching the meta-metaphyscians?). --Patrick (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm happy with the sentence so I restored it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hope some of this is helpful for improving the article! Don't hesitate to follow up or push back with questions of clarification or otherwise. I don't have specific sources in mind for all of my comments, but I am willing to help locate them upon request.

I think this is it from me at least for now. Depending upon how long this stays open and whether anyone else weighs in, I might give it another read or interject in discussion. In whatever case, all best with the eventual FA review! Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have currently another FA nomination open and, judging from my last nominations, it will take a while before it closes and this article can be nominated. Thanks for the help so far and more comments are welcome if something catches your eye at a later point. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers,