When he prepared the edition of Aristotle’s works some decades before Christ’s birth, Andronicus of Rhodes entitled one set of lectures the Metaphysics or The books that come after the ones on Physics (ta meta ta Phusika). Consequently, the area of philosophy that Aristotle covers in that work came to be known as metaphysics. It is perhaps the most important area. The conclusions one reaches on the questions covered in metaphysics underlie and shape the conclusions reached in other areas.
Studying metaphysics is an essential part of an education in philosophy. It is also indispensable for theology because it regards the fundamental constitution of reality. The Church has drawn on metaphysics repeatedly to define the dogmas of the faith and interpret Sacred Scripture authoritatively. Conversely, many doctrinal errors result from unsound metaphysical views. As in any area of philosophy, there are many conflicting positions. Christians studying metaphysics, therefore, must do so discerningly.
In this interview, Michael Gorman selects and discusses the five best books for studying metaphysics.
Michael Gorman is Ordinary Professor of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America and a fellow at its Institute for Human Ecology. He works primarily on metaphysics, especially the metaphysics of essence, substance, and normativity, and on applications of metaphysics in areas such as theory of mind, Christology, action theory, and ethics. He is the author of Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union (Cambridge University Press) and A Contemporary Introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics (CUA Press).
Metaphysics by Aristotle, translated with introduction and notes by C.D.C. Reeve
Five Books for Catholics may receive a commission from qualifyng purchases made using the affliate links in this post.
What exactly is metaphysics? Classically understood, metaphysics is the study of being, or, as we sometimes say, being qua being: being as being.
You can study something, such as a squirrel, and just think about it as a squirrel. You can also think about it more generally. You might think about it as a rodent or more generally still as an animal. You could keep going. However, if you think about things in a maximally general way, you think about them as beings: as things that are. That is what metaphysics does.
Ontology—the science of being—is another name for metaphysics. It indicates that being as such is the specific object of metaphysics. It thereby supposes that being is the most fundamental description or aspect of reality. How so? It's funny. In one way, we think that being is the most obvious thing there is. However, we scratch our head figuring out how to describe it. What do you contrast it with? In a way, you cannot contrast it with anything because the alternative is nothing. That sounds like a silly comment, but, in a sense, this is why being is the most fundamental thing there is. You could put it this way. Being is what is actual, but without actuality, there is simply nothing. Being is the ultimate sine qua non.
"Those who say that they do not believe in metaphysics still end up doing it. You cannot avoid metaphysics because it is the study of that which is most basic, and something must be most basic."
Aristotle describes the inquiry he pursues in his Metaphysics as one into first philosophy. By first philosophy, he means the philosophical discipline that provides the most foundational account of reality. He postulates that if there are immaterial substances, then the study of being as being is first philosophy. Otherwise, physics, the study of being in movement, is the first philosophy. Nowadays, many who write on metaphysics reject the existence of immaterial substances and so do not share at all Aristotle’s conception of first philosophy. Others, such as Husserl, believe that phenomenology rather than metaphysics is first philosophy. How can we even speak of metaphysics as a discipline or area of study if there is no agreement whatsoever on the nature of first philosophy? There are many things packed into this question. The primary thing to say is that something must be the first and most basic thing there is. That is what metaphysics studies.
Now, suppose you hold that the most basic things are physical particles, such as atoms. This is still metaphysics, even if it is an impoverished metaphysics. Alternatively, suppose you take consciousness to be the most basic thing there is. Some interpret Husserl in this way. Then consciousness turns out to be what metaphysics dug up. So, those who say that they do not believe in metaphysics still end up doing it. You cannot avoid metaphysics because it is the study of that which is most basic, and something must be most basic.
" Whenever you hear or read some metaphysics, it is important to try and say it in your own, simple words as best you can."
What are the main subjects that metaphysics covers? Many different subjects come up in metaphysics. One is the difference between substances and accidents. A substance is an independent, unified thing. However, it has certain features that come and go. Right now, I am sitting. I could have been standing instead. I am substance, but my posture of sitting or standing is an accident. That is one of the things that metaphysics covers.
However, metaphysics is also interested in the differences between individuals and generality. I am an individual human. So are you. There is something common between us: being human. This brings up the problem of universals.
Another question metaphysics gets into is the distinction between that which is actual, possible, or necessary. Some things must be the way they are, whereas others just happen to be the way they are.
Metaphysics also worries about causation. Many of the previous topics lead towards the idea that there must be some being—if that turns out to be the right word for it—that is maximally basic and the source of everything else. That is God. Some argue that at this point we have moved outside the bounds of metaphysics: that it may be better not to think of God as a being or as part of metaphysics. God may lie outside of being and so, properly speaking, is not part of the subject matter of metaphysics. Rather, he is the source of that which metaphysics studies.
Is it possible to engage in philosophical reflection or believe in a religion without implicitly engaging in metaphysics to some degree? I would say that it is not. However, the word ‘implicitly’ is doing a lot of work here.
You might believe in God and that he created the world. That belief goes hand in hand with thinking that creatures could be or could not be, and that God cannot not exist but exists necessarily. It involves the distinction between necessary being and contingent being. This is a metaphysical topic. However, most engage in religious talk do not think about this topic explicitly. There is a time and place in which it is important to address it explicitly. However, those who do not do so all the time are not being irresponsible or negligent. They are doing it implicitly.
Metaphysics, like various areas of philosophy, is often abstruse and difficult. As a result, it can be off-putting for newcomers. Do you have any advice on how to overcome the initial difficulties? Yes, it is tough. Whenever you hear or read some metaphysics, it is important to try and say it in your own, simple words as best you can. Try to get beyond all the technical terminology. The technical terminology can be good. Sometimes, however, we get into the bad habit of just using the technical terms as little tokens in a game, where we are good at knowing when to use them but are not sure of what they mean. Try instead to turn the ideas into concrete, practical, everyday examples. Suppose you are talking about substance but cannot think of even one example of a substance. That is a clue that you do not know what you mean.
You also need to be very patient. Learning metaphysics takes a long time because it is so general and abstract. You should probably not start the study of philosophy with it. Instead, it is much better to start with a more practical or down-to-earth area, such as ethics or human nature. In so doing, metaphysical issues will arise. You will be led into them in a more concrete way rather than worrying about the real distinction between essence and existence just because someone told you to. Such a distinction will leave most people cold if it comes out of nowhere. It is an answer to a question that they have not raised yet.
On that note, would you suggest perhaps reading some of the works of the Church Fathers that deal with the Trinity or Christology as a more practical way into metaphysics? That is a good question. Funnily, when I started to read the Church Fathers, I thought that they would simply use a bunch of metaphors. They do use many metaphors. However, if you pay attention, it becomes clear that some hardcore philosophy and metaphysics is going on in the background. They simply tend to express it in a non-technical way.
A non-religious person is unlikely to find the Church Fathers helpful in this regard. However, reading them will be interesting for Christians. Not only are many of the great theological debates in their early stages and being thrashed out, but so are metaphysical issues. For example, what is the difference between a person and a nature? The debates between Cyril and Nestorius on Christology are great to study. You start to see how, to resolve this theological problem, they needed to sort out certain metaphysical problems. That can whet your appetite and help you see both the need for metaphysics and its importance.
In its dogmatic definitions, the Church has recurred repeatedly to metaphysics. It teaches that the three divine persons are consubstantial; that God has created all creatures out of nothing; that the two integral natures of Jesus Christ are united in his divine person; that Jesus is present substantially under the Eucharistic species; and so forth. Does theology need metaphysics? It does, in part. Let me put it more provocatively. Maybe we should say that theology does not need metaphysics to get underway but simply brings it in as an extra help. However, it seems to me that metaphysics is involved in any theology that is going on. It may be good metaphysics, or it may be bad metaphysical thought. It may be either clear or confused. Nevertheless, some degree of metaphysical thought is already underway because you cannot talk about anything at all without raising metaphysical questions or engaging in them. Trying to do theology without metaphysics and a substantial philosophical substructure is simply doomed.
Whenever you deal with bad theology, scratch the surface, and most of the time you will find that there is bad philosophy underneath.
Étienne Gilson, a major twentieth-century Catholic thinker, argued that there is a Christian philosophy. A Christian philosophy is one whose arguments are rigorously philosophical, but which draws important hypotheses and insights from Revelation. It is important because philosophers have only ever reached certain conclusions under the influence of Revelation. Does metaphysics need Revelation?This is a classic question. Some important metaphysical topics that can be discovered and thought through quite effectively without Revelation. We know that this is the case, because it has been done. Aristotle did not have the benefit of Revelation and yet uncovered tonnes of amazing stuff.
St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that we can discover many truths about God without Revelation, whereas there are others that we can never know—such as the Trinity of divine persons and the Incarnation—without Revelation. He also teaches that discovering those truths about God that we can know without Revelation is very difficult. Very few people have the time or capability to do so. Even those who do tend to make many mistakes. Aristotle, for example, is wrong about certain things. So, Revelation is an enormous help. Not only does it give us insights into things we would never have thought of. It also puts up certain guardrails.
In doing philosophy, you need to explore all kinds of stuff. Much of it is quite wacky: and not just weird but false. Still, you need to explore it. Thanks to Revelation, it is good to know that it is ultimately false and that you are not going to be fooled. Revelation sets up guardrails and helps protect against error.
As with any area of philosophy, there are rival accounts of metaphysics. The readings you have selected initiate the reader into the metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, which builds upon that of Aristotle. Do you advocate Thomistic metaphysics simply because it is the correct account or also because the Church recommends the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas? The Church's recommendation of St. Thomas is a good thing and should be important to us.
Interestingly, the Church has not always recommended St. Thomas in the same way. It is possible to go overboard and make it sound as if you are not really a Catholic unless you are a Thomist. That cannot be the case. Hence, it is worth considering why St. Thomas is so important.
It is not because he is always right. He and blessed John Duns Scotus disagreed about the Immaculate Conception, but it was Scotus who was right about that issue. Moreover, many of Aquinas’s positions have been held by all the other great Christian thinkers. Aquinas is basically a Cyrillian in his Christology. There are tonnes of Augustine in St. Thomas. Even Aquinas and Scotus probably agree on at least ninety percent of things. So, it is not a matter of opting for St. Thomas instead of everybody else.
However, he is special and important, and partly for quirky historical reasons. You could put this down to God's providence.
St. Thomas lived and worked when the writings of Aristotle were being processed more fully than before by Christian philosophers and theologians. By the time he came on the scene, many more of Aristotle’s work were accessible and, over several decades, had been thought through in the universities. Much of the preparatory work had been done. So, Thomas could get right down to studying Aristotle’s writings.
Even thirty years after his death, the debates in philosophy and theology had become immensely more complicated. Topics that St. Thomas had dealt with in 200 words, now needed twenty pages of discussion. Under those conditions, theologians were no longer able to cover as much ground. St. Thomas, on the other hand, was in a position to write several summaries of theology, besides more detailed investigations into specific topics. It is simply amazing how much ground he was able to cover in a compact way. Sometimes we wish he had gone into more detail. Still, he was able to provide an overview of so many different subjects. That makes him a very useful resource for study. It makes it easier to learn from him. This was partly due to his location within the history of Christian thought. He lived at a magical time.
He was the right person at the right place at the right time. Yes. If I had been there, I would not have been as good because I am not as smart as St. Thomas. However, had he arrived on the scene in either 1200 or 1370, he would not have been as equally brilliant.
1.
There are many introductory books to metaphysics. Yours differs from most in that it is Thomistic. It differs from most introductions to the Thomistic metaphysics in that it engages with contemporary analytical philosophy. What is analytical philosophy and why must metaphysical inquiry engage with it? Some think of analytical philosophy as a school, as if all its practitioners agree on certain principles or such like. That is not the case. Analytical philosophy is not even a method. It is nothing more than a historical tradition of philosophical inquiry and discussion.
It starts around the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. There were some key founding figures. Then came those who studied with them or read their works. They were followed by those who studied with them or read their works, and so on, until there is a historical chain. Most of these analytical philosophers worked in England and, subsequently, in English speaking countries.
However, analytical philosophers disagree with one another ferociously. Some are atheists; some are card-carrying Catholics. Some are materialists; some are dualists. It is amazing how much variety there is. Whenever someone asks, “What does do analytic philosophers believe?”, I reply, “Almost anything.”
Engaging with analytical philosophy can be important and valuable for several reasons.
First, some analytic philosophy is quite good. It is very clear, well written, and explores key topics in a very helpful way.
Nevertheless, there have been phases in analytic philosophy where its practitioners were quite ignorant of the history of philosophy and sometimes ended up reinventing the wheel. That is not good, even if you can sometimes learn something from someone who is good at reinventing the wheel. There is a raw freshness to what they are doing.
Sadly, some phases of analytic philosophy have been down on metaphysics.
Still, much analytic philosophy is good. You can learn a lot from it, if it works for you. However, some do not get anything out of it. That is fine.
There is another reason to be engaged with analytical philosophy. It has been the dominant mode of philosophizing for 120 years now, at least in the English-speaking world. It still is dominant. Hence, if you know something about it, you can engage with people who have been trained in it and talk philosophy with them. With some luck, you may even persuade them to give more traditional views a hearing. On a very good day, you can show them that those views are correct. You can even find something from analytic philosophy that helps you understand St. Thomas better. Sometimes this works the other way round too. Analytic philosophers may be tied up in knots and you propose an idea from St. Thomas, a thirteenth-century thinker, that moves the debate forward. However, you cannot do any of this if you are not familiar with these debates.
So, it's a bit like knowing a foreign language. Yes, I see the point of the analogy. Unless you know the language, you cannot even talk to those people. This analogy could be unpacked in further ways. Knowing another language gives you insights into things that you might not have had otherwise. It also helps you understand your own language better.
"Agreement and disagreement are structural elements in all philosophy"
You have described the approach adopted in your A Contemporary Introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics as being analytic-facing and deflationary. In what sense is it deflationary?
This post is for paying subscribers only
Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
