Peculiarity of Metaphysics

A reaction and at the same a time reflection paper

By
Renz A. Docejo

The peculiarity of metaphysics is yet to be discussed, but before that let me first define what
peculiarity is. Peculiarity in other words is the strangeness or the unsuality of how things appear
unnormal on the social construct of what is normal. Secondly, what is metaphysics? Metaphysics
is a branch of philosophy which deals with reality primarily with abstract concept such as Being,
causality and space and time.
Furthermore, if we take in consideration the peculiarity of metaphysics it will be confusing
since metaphysics alone is interesting but hard to digest, and I am not an expert metaphysician
nor fully exposed with all the concepts regarding metaphysics, thus I will strived to convey my
thoughts about my limited knowledge on metaphysics and the perculiarity it entails in accord on
how I perceived it subjectively.
And to make this as somewhat objectively I will react on the three concepts about metaphysics
st
1 the classical metaphysics in which they study Being or God and the possibility of not just one
but many worlds just like Plato’s world of forms. 2nd I will react on the metaphysical knowledge
of metaphysics, the synthetic a priori of Kant. Last but not the least I will also react on the
Kantian moral of categorical imperative.
If you ask me why I chose those topic, the answer is simple to make my life simple, since I
have only limited knowledge of metaphysics because I am just still taking this subject and we are
in the introduction part of metaphysics for now, so what would you expect in me. And lastly,
those topics are already familiar with me.
In conclusion, I apologized in advance for the lack of substance of this paper so, whoever will
read this please bear with me and you are free to educate me on what I lacked and buckle your
seatbelt for I will take you on a metaphysical journey.
 A. Classical Metaphysics

Classical metaphysics is not a contemporary metaphysics obviously, but we can distinguish

them by their subject matter. The subject matter of classical metaphysics would focus primarily
on the study of Being with a capital B. let us consider for instance the subject matter of
scholastic philosopher and with that I assume that it falls into metaphysics.
While on the other hand, the subject matter of contemporary philosophy is unknown to me
since the fact that I have limited knowledge on it and I did not do advance reading for I prioritize
the chronological order of philosophy and the learning of philosophy should be chronological for
you cannot understand the contemporary philosophy without studying the classical ones. And I
assume I will be having a hard time proceeding into contemporary since I’m having a hard time
comprehending the classical texts on philosophy.
So, let us assume that classical philosophy talks about God and the possibility of many words
such as heaven and hell. So, what does it suggest? Well, for me it is nonsense and I will tell you
why. Speaking scientifically why do humans create illusions such as myths such as heaven and
hell or even God. It is because our mind is new to the use of logos, therefore, there is still that
arrogant neurons or DNA in our blood that still program us to think mythical.
To further support it is that, the majority of humans(I assumed that it’s the majority) just
recently adopted the use of logos as the primary explanation of things approximately during the
enlightenment age of the 17th century. Even if someone would say that the emergence of fist
philosophers such as Thales already used logos as his bases hence, logos is not a new embraced
thing, but even if that is the case, let us consider that during that time logos as primary bases of
explaining things are in minority therefore, that dumb gene that made us think mythically has
persisted through time and till now it runs through our blood and it will still pass on for time to
come.
What I mean here is that, classical metaphysics is the product of that dumb gene since
believing in a possibility of many worlds and gods are an illusion to ease the suffering of the
reality which is here and now. The world in a bigger picture is absurd and does not have meaning
and since man is in thirst of searching or finding the meaning of existence they tend to create
illusion to fill that void. The lack of explanation of something is not an evident of god but it is
the evident of lack of understanding.
Another thing is that, as a materialist believing in the possibility of two worlds is an act of
cowardice and the fear of the unknown for it only runs from the suffering of the reality which is
here and now. Believing in the possibility of heaven, hell or Plato’s world of form is a
philosophical suicide since believing on it is not thinking and just submitting to an already
premade meaning of life.
What I suggest is that we lived on this world and only in this world and must lived on it as if
it is the only way because it is the only way we create a world of interconnected people for
believing in the possibility of many worlds will likely create a disconnected people which only
focuses on how they could live on that other world like heaven or hell which they will forget to
lived in the present.

B. synthetic a priori

Well, actually I don’t really grasp the meaning synthetic a priori. But what I know is that
knowledge should be experience and not just experience alone. Example, we know that the sun
rises in the east and sets in the west by virtue of experience but regardless of experience it does
not work that way since sun does not rise or set, the earth only rotates.
But, how do we synthetic a priori metaphysics if we cannot experience metaphysics just like
God. Kant divided the world into two, a phenomenal world in which things we know, and we can
know belongs here. And the other one is Noumenal world in which he said it is impossible to
have knowledge in this world, but that statement alone (it is impossible to have knowledge in
this world) isn’t that knowledge?
The Noumenal world is like this:

BLANK
Because it is unknowable
 C. Categorical imperative

Categorical imperative is metaphysics because it assumed that there is a universal law in

which is connected individually. Categorical imperative has three maxims, 1st universality which
whatever you do must be universalize and it must not counter intuitive to your own goal such as
stealing is bad because what if you stole something and it was stolen from you by someone
hence, it is not universable for it is self-contradictory to your own goal.
The 2nd maxim is that you should not use any person as a means the 3rd is the autonomy. But,
I will focus primarily on the 2nd maxim of the categorical imperative which is the formula of
humanity which you should not use the person as a means but as an ends to themselves. Let us
consider this example: some people only loved the person because of the qualities, but if that
person losses that qualities most likely the relationship would be over because the person who
once loved that person would argue that “you have changed you are not the person whom I fall in
love with, the person who is kind” absolutely, that example clearly violates the 2nd formulation
of the categorical imperative since, that person only loved that person as a means because of the
qualities that person possessed not merely as an ends.
But I would like to argue that the categorical imperative would not work all the time. Let us
consider the classic trolley problem. Whatever you would choose either the track which would
lead to the death of many or the track which would lead to the death of one. Either/or whatever
choice would violate the 2nd formulation of the categorical because, it is impossible to choose
without using the other option as mere means to save the other option.
It means that, metaphysics on morals is peculiar for it has flaws in itself just like what stated
above and it means that some things are not universable just like morals. What I suggest is that
we should recognize the peculiarity of metaphysics when it comes to morals.
Conclusions:
I do not hate metaphysics in general only some concepts about it. Metaphysics for me is just
impossible to grasp on. For me, whatever humans can think even if it is beyond is not
metaphysics but a product of thinking because metaphysics if ever it is called metaphysics is
unknowable just like the noumena concept of Kant. So, if it is unknowable then we should label
it as unknowable then metaphysics is unknowable.
The peculiarity of metaphysics for me is the effect on the people who believed on the
metaphysical world and how it forms them, and the reason why do humans ever thought of
thinking the metaphysical world at the first place.
Despite of all of this, I still have things to learn from metaphysics and I am open that my belief
might be false regarding metaphysics. So, I am hoping that in the future I could grasp the
implication of metaphysics because according to Nietzsche “one must have the courage to
contradict his own conviction” so I am ready to contradict my conviction of materialism with
metaphysics.