A trilemma for naturalized metaphysics
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Documents
- Fulltext
Final published version, 282 KB, PDF document
Radical naturalized metaphysics wants to argue (1) that metaphysics without sufficient epistemic warrant should not be pursued, (2) that the traditional methods of metaphysics cannot provide epistemic warrant, (3) that metaphysics using these methods must therefore be discontinued, and (4) that naturalized metaphysics should be pursued instead since (5) such science-based metaphysics succeeds in establishing justified conclusions about ultimate reality. This paper argues that to defend (5), naturalized metaphysics must rely on methods similar to those criticized in (2). If naturalized metaphysics instead opts for the weaker claim that science-based metaphysics is only superior to other metaphysics, then this is insufficient to establish (4). In this case, (4) might therefore be defeated by (1). An alternative is to replace (1) with the view that we should just approach metaphysical questions with the best means available. While this would recommend a science-based approach whenever possible, it would also allow for the continuation of science-independent metaphysics in domains that science has no bearing on and thus reject (3). The paper concludes that none of these alternatives is entirely satisfactory for naturalized metaphysics.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Ratio |
Volume | 36 |
Issue number | 1 |
Pages (from-to) | 1-10 |
Number of pages | 10 |
ISSN | 0034-0006 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2023 |
Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author. Ratio published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- epistemic risk, metametaphysics, naturalism, naturalized metaphysics, philosophy of science
Research areas
ID: 339998074