Metaphysical inquiry into the fundamental nature of reality. Covers ontology (what exists), substance and properties, universals vs. particulars, free will and determinism, personal identity, philosophy of mind (dualism, physicalism, functionalism, the hard problem of consciousness), causation, time, possible worlds, Buddhist metaphysics (Nagarjuna's sunyata, dependent origination, two truths doctrine), and process philosophy (Whitehead). Use when exploring questions about existence, consciousness, identity, free will, or the fundamental structure of reality.
Metaphysics asks the most fundamental questions philosophy can pose: What exists? What is the nature of reality? What am I? These questions resist empirical resolution — not because they are unscientific, but because they concern the framework within which science itself operates. This skill covers the major branches of metaphysical inquiry with worked examples from both Western and Buddhist traditions.
Agent affinity: nagarjuna (metaphysics and philosophy of mind, Sonnet), beauvoir (existentialism and phenomenology, Opus)
Concept IDs: philo-thought-experiments, philo-philosophical-questioning
| # | Domain | Core question | Key thinkers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ontology | What exists? | Aristotle, Quine, Meinong |
| 2 | Substance and properties | What are things made of? | Aristotle, Locke, Bundle theorists |
| 3 | Universals vs. particulars | Do properties exist independently? |
| Plato, Armstrong, trope theorists |
| 4 | Free will and determinism | Are our choices free? | Hume, Kant, Frankfurt, van Inwagen |
| 5 | Personal identity | What makes me the same person over time? | Locke, Parfit, Olson |
| 6 | Philosophy of mind | What is consciousness? | Descartes, Dennett, Chalmers, Nagel |
| 7 | Causation | What makes one thing cause another? | Hume, Lewis, Anscombe |
| 8 | Time | Is the past real? The future? | McTaggart, Prior, Sider |
| 9 | Possible worlds | What could have been? | Leibniz, Lewis, Kripke |
| 10 | Buddhist metaphysics | What is emptiness? | Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Candrakirti |
| 11 | Process philosophy | Is reality made of processes or things? | Whitehead, Rescher |
Core question. What exists? What does it mean for something to exist?
W. V. O. Quine proposed that we are committed to the existence of whatever our best scientific theories quantify over. "To be is to be the value of a bound variable." If physics requires quantifying over electrons, we are ontologically committed to electrons. If mathematics requires quantifying over numbers, we are committed to numbers.
Worked example — The ontological status of mathematical objects:
Consider the statement: "There exists a prime number greater than one trillion." If we take this at face value, we are committed to the existence of numbers. But where do numbers exist? They are not physical objects. This generates the problem of abstract objects:
Can we think about things that do not exist? We seem to — we think about unicorns, Sherlock Holmes, and the largest prime number (which we can prove does not exist). Meinong (1904) distinguished between existence (actual things), subsistence (abstract objects), and Aussersein (objects that have neither). Russell (1905) dissolved the problem via his theory of definite descriptions, reducing apparent reference to non-existent objects to quantified statements that can be straightforwardly false.
Locke (1689) argued that substances are "something I know not what" — bare substrata that support properties. A table has the property of being brown, being hard, being rectangular — but what is the table apart from these properties? The substratum is what remains when you strip away all the properties.
Objection: If the substratum has no properties of its own, it is featureless — and a featureless thing seems like nothing at all.
The alternative: there is no substratum. A thing IS the bundle of its properties. A table is brownness + hardness + rectangularity + spatial location + ... co-located at a point.
Objection (the identity of indiscernibles): If two objects had exactly the same properties, bundle theory implies they would be the same object. But can't there be two qualitatively identical spheres in an otherwise empty universe? Max Black's (1952) thought experiment suggests yes — which challenges bundle theory.
Worked example — Black's two spheres:
Imagine a universe containing nothing but two perfectly identical iron spheres, one mile apart. They have the same size, shape, mass, temperature, and every other property. Are they the same object? Intuitively, no — there are two of them. But if they share all properties (including relational properties, since the universe is symmetric), bundle theory cannot distinguish them. This suggests that either there is something more to objects than their properties (a "bare particular") or that our spatial framework smuggles in a hidden individuating property.
The problem. Multiple things can share the same property — this apple and that fire truck are both red. What explains this? Is there one thing — redness — that both objects participate in? Or is each instance of red a distinct entity?
| Position | Claim | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Platonic realism | Universals exist independently (in a "third realm") | How do abstract universals connect to concrete particulars? (Third man argument) |
| Aristotelian realism | Universals exist but only as instantiated in particulars | What about uninstantiated universals (properties nothing actually has)? |
| Nominalism | Only particulars exist; "universals" are just names | What grounds the resemblance between particulars called by the same name? |
| Trope theory | Each instance is a particular property (a "trope"); resemblance between tropes is primitive | Still needs to explain exact resemblance |
Worked example — The third man argument (Plato's Parmenides):
Suppose there is a Form of Largeness that explains why large things are large. Now consider: the Form of Largeness and the large things share the property of being large. By the original reasoning, there must be a second Form — the Form of Largeness-2 — to explain what they share. But then Largeness-2 and Largeness also share something, requiring Largeness-3, and so on infinitely. This regress was raised by Plato himself as a problem for his own theory — intellectual honesty of the highest order.
The problem. If every event is determined by prior causes and the laws of nature, then my actions are determined. If my actions are determined, it seems I could not have done otherwise. If I could not have done otherwise, am I free? Am I morally responsible?
| Position | Free will? | Determinism? | Key thinkers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hard determinism | No | Yes | d'Holbach, Pereboom |
| Libertarianism (metaphysical) | Yes | No | Chisholm, Kane, van Inwagen |
| Compatibilism | Yes | Yes (or irrelevant) | Hume, Frankfurt, Dennett |
Harry Frankfurt devised thought experiments to challenge the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) — that moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise.
Worked example — Frankfurt's counterfactual intervener:
Jones decides, entirely on his own, to vote for candidate A. Unbeknownst to Jones, Black — a neuroscientist — has implanted a device that would force Jones to vote for A if he showed any inclination to vote otherwise. As it happens, Jones votes for A voluntarily; the device is never triggered.
Analysis: Jones could not have done otherwise (Black's device would have intervened). Yet Jones seems morally responsible for his vote — he chose it freely, for his own reasons, without any interference. If this is right, PAP is false: moral responsibility does not require alternate possibilities. What matters is the actual causal history of the decision, not the counterfactual alternatives.
The consequence argument (van Inwagen). If determinism is true, then the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact about the future. I can change neither the past nor the laws. Therefore I cannot change the future. Therefore I am not free. This argument aims to show that compatibilism is incoherent — but compatibilists respond by analyzing "could have done otherwise" in terms of what I would have done under different desires, not different physical histories.
Beauvoir argued that the free will debate as traditionally framed misses the point. Freedom is not a metaphysical property we either have or lack — it is the fundamental structure of human existence. We experience ourselves as projects oriented toward the future, choosing among possibilities. This phenomenological freedom is compatible with causal determination of the physical world because freedom operates at the level of meaning, not mechanism.
Core question. What makes me the same person I was ten years ago? My body has changed. My beliefs have changed. My memories are different. What persists?
John Locke (1689) argued that personal identity consists in continuity of consciousness — specifically, memory. I am the same person as the child who broke the vase because I remember breaking it (or I remember remembering it, etc.).
The brave officer paradox (Reid). An old general remembers being a young officer. The young officer remembered being a schoolboy who was flogged. But the general has no memory of being flogged. By Locke's criterion, the officer = the schoolboy, and the general = the officer, but the general is not the schoolboy. This violates transitivity.
Parfit's response: Psychological continuity need not be all-or-nothing. It comes in degrees and can branch. What matters is not strict identity but psychological connectedness — overlapping chains of memory, personality, intentions, and beliefs.
The alternative: I am the same person because I have the same (continuous) body. Even if my memories were erased, it would still be me.
Worked example — The teleporter:
A machine scans your body at the molecular level, transmits the information to Mars, and constructs a perfect replica. The original body on Earth is destroyed. Is the person on Mars you?
Psychological continuity theory: Yes. The replica has all your memories, beliefs, personality traits, and intentions. Psychological continuity is preserved.
Bodily continuity theory: No. The original body was destroyed. The Mars person is a copy, not you.
Parfit's view: The question "Is it me?" is empty. What matters is the psychological continuity — and whether it is carried by one body or a replica is unimportant. Parfit embraced this conclusion: personal identity is not what matters in survival.
The branch case: Suppose the teleporter malfunctions and the original is NOT destroyed. Now there are two psychologically continuous beings. Which one is you? Both? Neither? This shows that psychological continuity does not guarantee identity (since identity is one-one but branching is one-many).
Paul Ricoeur and others have argued that personal identity is constituted by the stories we tell about ourselves — our life narratives. I am the protagonist of an ongoing story that weaves together past, present, and future into a coherent whole. This captures something the other theories miss: the felt sense of identity as an achievement, not a given.
How does consciousness relate to the physical brain? This is arguably the deepest unsolved problem in philosophy.
| Position | Claim | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Substance dualism (Descartes) | Mind and body are distinct substances | How do they interact? (Interaction problem) |
| Property dualism (Chalmers) | One substance, two kinds of property (physical and phenomenal) | Why does the physical give rise to the phenomenal? |
| Physicalism/materialism | Only physical properties exist; consciousness is physical | The hard problem (below) |
| Functionalism (Putnam) | Mental states are defined by their functional roles | Could a system with the right functional organization but no qualia be conscious? |
| Eliminativism (Churchlands) | Folk psychology (beliefs, desires) is a failed theory that will be replaced | Seems to deny the existence of the very consciousness we experience |
David Chalmers distinguished:
Worked example — Mary the color scientist (Jackson 1982):
Mary is a brilliant neuroscientist who has spent her entire life in a black-and-white room. She knows every physical fact about color perception — the wavelengths, the neural processes, the behavioral responses. One day she leaves the room and sees a red rose for the first time.
Question: Does Mary learn something new — namely, what it is like to see red?
The knowledge argument: If Mary learns something new, then there are facts about consciousness that are not physical facts. Therefore physicalism is false.
Physicalist responses: (a) Mary gains a new ability (knowing how), not new knowledge (knowing that). (b) Mary gains new concepts for the same old facts. (c) Mary was never truly omniscient about the physical — qualia ARE physical, and she could not have known them without the experience.
Thomas Nagel argued that consciousness has an essentially subjective character. There is something it is like to be a bat — to experience the world through echolocation. But we cannot know what that is like, because understanding bat consciousness would require adopting the bat's point of view, which is inaccessible to us. Objective, third-person science cannot capture the subjective character of experience.
Hume (1739) argued that we never perceive causation directly — we perceive only constant conjunction (A-type events regularly followed by B-type events). Causation is nothing but regular succession plus a psychological habit of expecting B after A.
David Lewis proposed: A caused B if and only if, had A not occurred, B would not have occurred. This captures the intuitive meaning of causation better than Hume but requires a theory of possible worlds to evaluate counterfactuals.
Worked example — Overdetermination:
Two assassins independently fire at the same moment, and both bullets hit the target simultaneously. Did assassin A cause the death? The counterfactual test says no — if A had not fired, B's bullet would still have killed the target. Similarly for B. So neither caused the death? This is absurd. Overdetermination cases show that simple counterfactual analysis needs supplementation.
An alternative tradition (Aristotle, Moliere's "dormitive virtue," Mumford and Anjum): objects have real causal powers or dispositions. Salt has the power to dissolve in water. Fire has the power to burn. Causation is the manifestation of powers, not just regular succession.
J. M. E. McTaggart distinguished two ways of ordering events:
McTaggart argued: (1) The A-series is essential to time (without "now," there is no real temporal passage). (2) The A-series is contradictory (every event is past, present, and future, which are incompatible properties). (3) Therefore time is unreal.
| View | Past real? | Present real? | Future real? | Key thinkers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presentism | No | Yes | No | Prior, Bigelow |
| Growing block | Yes | Yes | No | Broad, Tooley |
| Eternalism (block universe) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Einstein, Sider, Lewis |
Worked example — The implications of special relativity:
Einstein's special theory of relativity implies that simultaneity is relative to a frame of reference. Two events that are simultaneous in one frame may be temporally ordered in another. If presentism is true (only the present exists), and the present is relative to a frame, then what exists is relative to a frame — different observers disagree about what exists right now. Most philosophers of physics take this as strong evidence for eternalism.
Core question. What does it mean for something to be possible or necessary?
David Lewis (1936-2001) argued that possible worlds are just as real as the actual world — they are concrete, spatiotemporally isolated universes. "Actual" just means "the world we happen to inhabit," like "here" means "the place I happen to be."
Advantage: Provides a clear, reductive account of possibility and necessity. Possibly P = P is true at some world. Necessarily P = P is true at all worlds.
Cost: Ontological extravagance — infinitely many concrete universes.
Saul Kripke (1940-2022) used possible worlds as abstract models, not concrete universes. A possible world is a complete way things could have been — a maximally consistent set of propositions.
Kripke's key distinction — rigid designators: A name like "Aristotle" refers to the same individual in every possible world. We can ask: "What if Aristotle had never studied with Plato?" — we are asking about the same person (Aristotle) in a counterfactual scenario. This grounds the necessity of identity: if a = b, then necessarily a = b (Hesperus IS Phosphorus in every possible world, even though the identity was an empirical discovery).
Nagarjuna (c. 150-250 CE), founder of the Madhyamaka school, argued that all things are empty (sunya) of inherent existence (svabhava). Nothing exists independently, from its own side, with its own fixed nature.
The method of the tetralemma (catuskoti). Nagarjuna systematically negates four positions about any proposed entity X:
This is not nihilism but the rejection of all conceptual fixation. Things exist conventionally (as dependent arisings) but not ultimately (as independent substances).
Core idea. Nothing arises independently. Everything arises in dependence on causes, conditions, and conceptual designation.
Worked example — The chariot analogy (Milinda's Questions / Nagasena):
Is a chariot its wheels? No. Its axle? No. Its frame? No. All parts assembled? That is just a collection. Is the chariot something over and above its parts? No. "Chariot" is a conventional designation applied to a dependent arrangement of parts. It has no inherent existence — yet we can perfectly well use chariots, talk about chariots, and ride in chariots. Conventional truth and ultimate truth do not conflict.
Both truths are needed. Denying conventional truth leads to nihilism (nothing exists, nothing matters). Denying ultimate truth leads to essentialism (things have fixed natures, change is impossible). The middle way navigates between both extremes.
Alfred North Whitehead argued that the fundamental entities are not substances (enduring things) but actual occasions — momentary drops of experience that arise, achieve satisfaction, and perish. Reality is not a collection of things but an ongoing process of becoming.
Key concepts:
Convergence with Buddhist thought. Whitehead's process metaphysics shares structural similarities with Buddhist dependent origination: both reject substance, emphasize process, and treat enduring things as constructions from momentary events.