QUESTIONS #1

1. What is the purpose of the philosophical enterprise as a whole, and of

metaphysics within it.

The purpose of philosophical enterprise is to illuminate our human experiences

and to search for the ultimacy and of meaning that is systematically articulated . The role
of metaphysics within philosophy is that the metaphysics is the basic or the grounding to
which philosophy anchors itself especially in philosophizing. Metaphysics attempts to
produce an explanation of that which is common to all the particulars to have an
intelligibility of understanding in the diversity and multiplicity of

2. What is its starting point? How does God fit in?

Since we cannot inspect all beings as immediately accessible to our experience

we start with what is accessible within the limited horizon of our experience, this material
cosmos.With this immediate access to the limited we can discern few universal
principles that are applicable to all beings, that is common to all finite particular beings.
And argue from the finite cosmos of our intelligibility to an ultimate source or cause that
is beyond experience what we call in the philosophical description God.

3. What is the difference between metaphysics and religion in their approach to

reality?
The main difference could be identified as that metaphysics' scope of inquiry is
universal, embracing, encompassing being although the method is purely philosophical.
Since it is universal its reliance is purely on natural reason alone that is applied to our
human experience. Moreover metaphysics is purely intellectual and even speculative in
terms of search for wisdom. While on the other hand religion involves a response of the
heart and commitment not in reason alone but both reason and faith is involved in this
activity.

3.1. What two books had God given us to read about reality?

The medieval Christian thinkers stipulated that God spoke to us through two great
books: the book of revelation and book of nature, the former is where God speaks to us directly.
On the other hand, the book of Revelation is where God himself reveals or discloses his own
plan and gift for humanity.

3.2 Why do both need to be read

Both books of Nature and Revelation need to be read because there is no contradiction
between the two. They both can be the source of illumination and since both are written by the
same author it could certainly not contradict each other.

4. Why must human metaphysics always remain humble

The expression as the only possible way of describing or explaining the
inexhaustible richness of this reality is always tied or limited to human concepts and
linguistic framework. This means that the finite humans are incomplete and bound to a
limited capacity while on the other hand metaphysicians discover universal truth that is in
the sense complete and total. However the conceptual-linguistic framework will have to
 anchor itself to always being incomplete. Therefore, metaphysics done by humans must
always remain humble because of our incapacity to express such difficult discipline.

5. What is the point of the following objections against the possibility of doing
metaphysics and the response to each?

5.1 No distinct subject matter

Every discipline studies or focuses on a specific field of study which in turn results in a
specific truth. Unlike metaphysics which claims to study everything all at once and it does not
have any particular field which tells us nothing in particular. However, it may not have a specific
focus but it has a distinct point of view which only takes what is fundamental and common to all
finite beings.

5.2 We as part of the whole cannot grasp the whole.

The possibility of a small part of something to overshadow or circumpass something a
larger part is as rare up to mere impossible. Greatly to humans who do metaphysics which
studies everything all at once, an impossible task as considered by some thinkers. Humans who
are limited, finite and incomplete to comprehend, grasp and understand this reality which is
total, complete and absolute.

5.3 Empiricism
A view that denies the act of knowing through reason alone. It leans more on the idea
that a human person acquires through sense experience. It is impossible to know without the
reliance to experience. The response for this is that empiricists disregard the very subject or the
self that is asking the question; it sets aside the inner world in its attempt to understand the
outside world. It stresses purely on the existence of the outside visible and tangible rather than
the intangible and invisible that is in the mind.

5.4 Kantianism
The main proponent of this belief is Immanuel Kant who supposes that we can never
know reality in itself because we only know reality which appears to us; the superficial and
shallow understanding of reality. The world only reveals the sense manifold or mere jumble of
sense images without apparent intelligible order. He further argued that it is not the world that
informs and molds our minds but it is the mind which intelligibly, forms,structures and orders the
world. However the flaw in Kant's theory of knowledge is that he blew the bridge of action by
which being manifest themselves. He even has no explanation how it would fit the idea, and
concepts from and structures in the mind and outside the mind.

5.5 Relativism
One cannot truly claim to grab hold of the absolute truth since no one possesses such
objective truth. It is always relative, subjective and opinionated. It varies from person to person
even from society to society. There is no truth that transcends all truth, beyond all of this is
enough to consider the partially differing modes of thinking and self expression of different
cultures. One partial truth can still be considered as truth that is of the same level with other
truths.
6.0 What is the root within us of all metaphysical inquiry, the dynamo of our whole life of
the mind?
The dynamism of the can be pointed out or the source of metaphysical inquiry since the
mind desires to know all that there is to know about all that there is. This natural drive surpasses
all limitations and focuses on the individual to seek out, a longing and capacity that is driven
toward the fulness of being as good.

6.1 The evidence for it

The mind desires what is good and is directed toward what os good and the intellect on
the other hand is driven toward what is intelligible, a perfect fit for both aspects. The desire in
itself is the visible evidence or the manifestation by which one can infer that it exists not limited
to the mind.

7. Why must this drive to know demand the complementary principle of the intelligibility
of being?

The intelligibility of being gives rise to metaphysics as it is the search for the ultimate
intelligibility of being. Insofar to be intelligible is to be determinate and this is matched by an
openness of all being to be known if not this desire becomes absurd, a cruel illusion.

7.1 All being

Since metaphysics is the search for the ultimate intelligibility of all beings by all it means
it considers in them only their most fundamental attributes, properties and laws in common with
all beings.

7.2 Can this be proved ahead of time

We have no way of knowing this ahead of time since there is the problem of the
incompleteness of the intelligibility of being. The finitude of the knower sets the limit, we would
already know the domain of being to know which parts are intelligible which is impossible.
Therefore, it cannot be proved ahead of time.

8. What is the method of metaphysics

(a) descriptive
The discovery and description of the basic attributes common to all beings, the general
kinds of categories of being and the basic data about the universe of our experience
which give rise to the central problems of metaphysics calling for a solution.

(b) explanatory
When the creatures of our experience are proven to lack intelligibility in some manner
when considered alone, the quest for ultimate rules, constitutive principles, and
explanatory causes begins.
9. Explain the two basic principles or laws on which all metaphysics is built ? Can the
second be reduced to the first?
The first principle is the Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is the Static Intelligibility of Being.
This concept establishes the fundamental norm of intelligibility that governs all existence and all
talk about anything at all. According to Aristotle, "nothing, i.e., no actual being, can both be and
not be at the same time and under the same aspect." If presented in a statement, "no proposition
can be both claimed and rejected at the same time and under the same aspect." This alludes to the
steadiness of existence in the face of nothingness. This premise is not the basis for any argument
from which any conclusion may be drawn. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is the second
principle. It is the Being's Dynamic Intelligibility. It allows the mind to go from one being to
another in order to make sense of it all and keep it from becoming unintelligible. This notion
states that every living thing must have a cause. If the creature includes this adequate reason in
itself, it is a self-sufficient being. If not, it must have a sufficient reason in another actual being,
which is referred to as its cause. This results in the most general statement of the Causality
Principle. "Any entity that does not hold the sufficient reason for its own being within itself
requires a cause," it says. The second principle was not reducible to the first. It is not in
contradiction to deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason when it is used to assert: "No being can
come into being without a cause." A contradiction would only result in "Being is non-being."