The myth of the metaphysical circle: An analysis of the contemporary crisis of the critique of metaphysics
Inquiry 51 (3):312 – 341 (2008)
| Abstract | Examination of contemporary debates on metaphysics and its critique yields the conclusion that there is an overall tendency to defend an inextricable bond between them. According to the vast majority of participants in these debates, any reaction against metaphysics, however powerful or radical, is bound to remain trapped in the metaphysical tradition. The dominant view is that criticism either remains tied to or eventually returns to forms of metaphysics, if it does not in fact remain metaphysical in itself. This view confirms the persistence of a typical pattern, namely, that of a circular relationship between metaphysics and its critique. Conspicuous by its absence is the idea of a critique of metaphysics that is not caught up in this vicious metaphysical circle. Moreover, the alleged self-defeating and counterproductive character of critique has become so widely and uncritically accepted—even among opponents of metaphysics—that strong and well-founded objections to metaphysics have largely disappeared from philosophical discourse. Contrary to the conventional idea of a crisis of metaphysics, there appears to be a crisis of the critique of metaphysics. This paper attempts to turn the tide of this crisis. It demonstrates that the categorical assertion of a circular relationship between metaphysics and its critique cannot be logically justified. Furthermore, it presents three different forms of criticism that cannot be metaphysically recuperated. It therefore concludes that the wide acceptance of the idea of an inescapable metaphysical circle, instead of being inspired by sound and irrefutable arguments, is essentially based on a myth. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesD. W. Hadley (2002). To Be Is to Be Determinate. International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (3):329-348.
José A. Benardete (1989). Metaphysics: The Logical Approach. Oxford University Press.
Immanuel Kant (1970). The Essential Kant. New York,New American Library.
Stephen Houlgate (1986). Hegel, Nietzsche, and the Criticism of Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
Johannes Persson (2011). Explanation in Metaphysics? Metaphysica 12 (2):165-181.
Robert Stern (2009). Hegelian Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
Tim Lord (2012). Collingwood and the Sea Anemone. Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 17 (1):117-134.
Colin Marshall (2010). Kant's Metaphysics of the Self. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (8):1-21.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2008). The Metaphysical Status of Logic. In Michal Peliš (ed.), The Logica Yearbook 2007. Filosofia.
William Desmond (2005). Is There Metaphysics After Critique? International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (2):221-241.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads38 ( #30,956 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
