Great start--as one who is profoundly ignorant of Zeno (and Miss Blumenstock, come to think of it) but who has a deep interest in these matters, I look forward to this. Thanks, Dwight!
And when I read about metaphilosophy, it seems to approve of naturalism? In my opinion, this is too hasty, because "meta" here transcends naturalism, and "philosophy" itself affirms the "grounded" aspect. Thus, "meta" + "philosophy" can understand the transcendental or spiritualism objectively.
It even became the subject of a survey, as there were objections to associating metaphilosophy with naturalism. [Link](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4870). Although the survey results cannot be taken as definitive, at least the concept of naturalism in metaphilosophy is not entirely accepted. We still need parties capable of providing a clearer, objective direction.
**Understanding METAPhilosophy Without Haste**
In simple terms, if we are to provide a clear concept of metaphilosophy, it should be understood as a "meta" that not only transcends naturalism but also crosses dimensions (universality).
Therefore, metaphilosophy should recognize the concept of absolute universal truth, surpassing the mere materialistic dimension that naturalism relies on.
Or perhaps I should consider that metaphilosophy, which emphasizes naturalism, is just the initial step towards universality, not confined to naturalism alone.
By recognizing more dimensions of existence, we can more clearly distinguish what is subjective and what is objective, as the boundaries of our understanding expand. It's like having a larger, more complete map: we know better which areas can be mapped objectively and which remain in the subjective realm or are yet unexplored.
In the context of metaphilosophy, this concept of objective universality allows philosophers not only to question the methods and goals of philosophy but also to engage perspectives that transcend the empirical or material dimensions. Therefore, metaphilosophy can be said to be more objective because it involves a broader viewpoint that encompasses not only the material dimension but also the non-material dimensions often overlooked in naturalism or empiricism.
**Contextual Conversion**
It's interesting to meet someone who is a naturalist yet relates it to METAPhilosophy, which, in my view, narrows the concept of META too much. So, this might become a long (and possibly engaging) discussion, where we explore metaphilosophy within the limits of naturalism compared to my perspective, which views metaphilosophy across dimensions and formulates it universally. This helps to eliminate ambiguity in philosophy by performing many contextual conversions so that something cross-dimensional (abstract - subjective) can be understood more rationally, realistically (as it is), objectively (practically), and universally (absolute).
**Intense & Progressive Discussion**
I hope that my cross-dimensional approach, which elevates philosophy to a higher and more comprehensive level—encompassing realities not limited to materialism or narrow empiricism—can affirm the true and rightful position of metaphilosophy as an alternative way of philosophizing. Although cross-dimensional, it still maintains empirical, realistic, and objective sides.
This approach could make philosophy more open to various perspectives, ultimately making it more relevant and impactful in how we understand the world in the era of artificial intelligence and quantum physics.
From my perspective, a metaphilosophy is very much like a world view, and will be based upon what William Halverson called a "touchstone proposition" in his book, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, 4th Edition (page 414). Although Halverson didn't use the term metaphilosophy, I that the overarching world views he presented in that book (not just naturalism but ethical theism and transcendentalism) would count as metaphilosophies.
The Wikipedia article on metaphilosophy identifies it as "the philosophy of philosophy" and traces the term back to Morris Lazerowitz in the 1940's. For Lazerowitz the word meant "the investigation of the nature of philosophy." Since the word philosophy literally means "the love of knowledge" this would make metaphilosophy the investigation of our love of knowledge. (The metaphilosophy of naturalism has to be very much concerned with our relationship to knowledge and with the relationship of knowledge to the world—a central theme of my version of naturalism is that we've got this all conflated.)
I use metaphilosophy in the sense of an overarching philosophical "family"—underneath which there can be many related members of the family. The three metaphilosophies I see are naturalism (touchstone proposition: physical stuff first, mind stuff evolved into existence later), supernaturalism (touchstone proposition: mind stuff first, physical stuff later), and panpsychism (neither physical stuff nor mind stuff was first but both present from the beginning).
I believe that naturalism (properly constructed) is not just a philosophical position but also a scientific hypothesis. I might even call it a meta-hypothesis.
The idea is that the theory of evolution is well-recognized as a theory which ties together and unifies many different sciences—it is in essence a meta-theory. Scientists may coherently make conflicting assertions about the drivers of evolution, but it is no longer possible to coherently remove evolution from the sciences—it is simply too essential to our understanding of biology, ecology, neuroscience, paleontology, geology, medicine, etc. Thus the status of evolution is that of not just a theory but a meta-theory: it ties almost everything together.
I see naturalism (if properly constructed) as a scientific hypothesis which expands the unifying concept of evolution into cognitive science as well as into traditional philosophical realms, such as philosophy of science (explaining why science is necessarily empirical) and epistemology (explaining why the brain/consciousness/knowledge system evolved and the how of its relationship to the world). You could flip this around and say that naturalism (properly constructed) allows science (and its unifying concept of evolution) an open door to invade these traditional philosophical areas.
My version of naturalism—unlike Halverson's take on it—dismisses determinism as a misunderstanding of the observer-independent world. Determinism mistakenly maps our explanations (which are most useful when deterministic rather than probabilistic) onto the observer-independent world due to knowledge and the world getting conflated. (A modern understanding of neuroscience helps us identify this mistake.)
It is great when naturalism is done well. Or it could come from supernaturalism (spiritual).
And because I believe that truth is singular, then it doesn't matter which direction it comes from, it will inevitably lead to one truth.
And the role of metaphilosophy here is to see where the side of absoluteness lies, and then look at the bigger picture to conclude in which direction it is leading.
In the case of evolution, the issue is actually the same with theism.
God Of The Gaps
Where, when there is a deadlock, it is simply explained that it is due to God. And this concept of God is considered unclear by naturalism. However, the possibility of God is acknowledged by theism, making this possibility the answer to unsolved mysteries. Although this is later known in science as the "God of the gaps," where science views religion as taking the easy way out when confused, to avoid the impression of a deadlock, it is said that it is from God. Yet, for theists, when there is a deadlock, the final solution that is considered possible is God, so God is included.
The basic principle is simple. When there is a possibility, it is not a problem to involve it.
Time Of The Gaps
This is similar to the case of evolution, where from observed examples of evolution, it is possible to infer the involvement of millions of years.
And when science also faces a deadlock, consciously or not, science also uses the possibility that is considered to exist, in this case involving "time," where the mystery is solved because "there is a process of millions of years." So this is also a gap, namely the "time of the gaps."
In reality, both "God of the gaps" from religion and "time of the gaps" from science represent the same pattern in understanding possibilities. So, apart from other arguments, at this point, the position of science is no more scientific than religion. Both have gaps that are not empirically proven, only seen as possibilities.
Bias Patterns
From the side of testing, it's the same. Even though science has gaps like religion, and although their methodologies differ, the pattern is essentially the same. Science emphasizes empiricism and neglects the spiritual dimension, while religion is seen as emphasizing spirituality and neglecting empiricism.
Imbalance. Both, in addition to having gaps, also have methodological imbalances, where one rejects metaphysics and the other rejects materialism entirely.
Anticipation. One will be more advanced than the other if science accepts metaphysics and religion accepts empiricism.
Balance. The challenge is how to balance both without making either feel coerced into the other’s realm. Religion should not feel forced into empiricism, ignoring transcendence, and science should not feel forced entirely into metaphysics, neglecting physics.
A New Paradigm
This is where metaphilosophy plays a role, bridging "metaphysics" and "physics" with two fundamental principles:
1. Principle of Consistency
That from whatever direction—"metaphysics" or "physics," "spiritual" or "empirical"—what needs to be emphasized is how consistent it is found in both "physics" and "metaphysics," so that its probability can be accepted, and its objectivity (practicality) can be more widely acknowledged.
2. Absoluteness
If so far, "physics" and "science" are identified with probability and causality, then both "metaphysics" and "physics" can be united by something more fundamental than relative causality, namely united through absoluteness.
This is where metaphilosophy (for me) plays a role as a philosophy that explores absoluteness, so that the opposing dimensions (metaphysics & physics) can be bridged to see towards a specific, non-ambiguous truth.
Synergy. A meta-effort that brings philosophy, which previously separated from science (philosophy being considered too abstract and non-objective), into a philosophy that is not only rational but also realistic and universal.
So, I will not argue further about theism versus atheism, but rather look at this polemic from the perspective of a new paradigm in reasoning, namely the paradigm of metaphilosophy.
For me, that is what metaphilosophy should do—not just researching how to philosophize (philosophy about philosophy), but also thinking outside the box (creatively understanding truth across dimensions).
Universal Approach
Regardless of whether absoluteness can serve as the basis of relativity, which leads to polemics and doubts about whether such absoluteness can be acknowledged, that is another story. But the main point is that metaphilosophy should go beyond merely studying philosophy—philosophy about philosophy (since the meaning of "meta" itself can be understood as "beyond," and there is a path in that direction). If "meta" can be placed in a broader perspective—across dimensions—then it's not a problem to understand "meta" as more than just philosophy about philosophy but rather "philosophy about universalism." In this way, naturalism and metaphysics are no longer at odds but instead are used together (in synergy) to view reality more balancedly, so the bigger picture can be understood more comprehensively.
Step by Step
So if universal absoluteness is still quite unfamiliar in the fields of philosophy and science, that’s not a problem, as long as metaphilosophy’s motivation is to make things clearer than before (even though there are still limits, it is an effort to reason better than before).
It just takes time to delve into the truth and realize that there is absoluteness there.
Thanks, Dwight! This is nicely done.
Great start--as one who is profoundly ignorant of Zeno (and Miss Blumenstock, come to think of it) but who has a deep interest in these matters, I look forward to this. Thanks, Dwight!
**METAPHILOSOPHY & NATURALISM**
I recently discovered that metaphilosophy is being recognized as an alternative to traditional philosophy.
However, as far as I understand, metaphilosophy is still only a term, and its working concept is not yet clearly defined.
**The Beginning of Adopting Naturalism**
As far as I know, based on this [link](https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=philo&id=philo_2001_0004_0002_0195_0215).
And when I read about metaphilosophy, it seems to approve of naturalism? In my opinion, this is too hasty, because "meta" here transcends naturalism, and "philosophy" itself affirms the "grounded" aspect. Thus, "meta" + "philosophy" can understand the transcendental or spiritualism objectively.
It even became the subject of a survey, as there were objections to associating metaphilosophy with naturalism. [Link](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4870). Although the survey results cannot be taken as definitive, at least the concept of naturalism in metaphilosophy is not entirely accepted. We still need parties capable of providing a clearer, objective direction.
**Understanding METAPhilosophy Without Haste**
In simple terms, if we are to provide a clear concept of metaphilosophy, it should be understood as a "meta" that not only transcends naturalism but also crosses dimensions (universality).
Therefore, metaphilosophy should recognize the concept of absolute universal truth, surpassing the mere materialistic dimension that naturalism relies on.
Or perhaps I should consider that metaphilosophy, which emphasizes naturalism, is just the initial step towards universality, not confined to naturalism alone.
By recognizing more dimensions of existence, we can more clearly distinguish what is subjective and what is objective, as the boundaries of our understanding expand. It's like having a larger, more complete map: we know better which areas can be mapped objectively and which remain in the subjective realm or are yet unexplored.
In the context of metaphilosophy, this concept of objective universality allows philosophers not only to question the methods and goals of philosophy but also to engage perspectives that transcend the empirical or material dimensions. Therefore, metaphilosophy can be said to be more objective because it involves a broader viewpoint that encompasses not only the material dimension but also the non-material dimensions often overlooked in naturalism or empiricism.
**Contextual Conversion**
It's interesting to meet someone who is a naturalist yet relates it to METAPhilosophy, which, in my view, narrows the concept of META too much. So, this might become a long (and possibly engaging) discussion, where we explore metaphilosophy within the limits of naturalism compared to my perspective, which views metaphilosophy across dimensions and formulates it universally. This helps to eliminate ambiguity in philosophy by performing many contextual conversions so that something cross-dimensional (abstract - subjective) can be understood more rationally, realistically (as it is), objectively (practically), and universally (absolute).
**Intense & Progressive Discussion**
I hope that my cross-dimensional approach, which elevates philosophy to a higher and more comprehensive level—encompassing realities not limited to materialism or narrow empiricism—can affirm the true and rightful position of metaphilosophy as an alternative way of philosophizing. Although cross-dimensional, it still maintains empirical, realistic, and objective sides.
This approach could make philosophy more open to various perspectives, ultimately making it more relevant and impactful in how we understand the world in the era of artificial intelligence and quantum physics.
Thanks for your interesting comment. I first encountered the term metaphilosophy in Quentin Smith's 2001 article in Philo, The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism. See link: https://www.pdcnet.org/philo/content/philo_2001_0004_0002_0195_0215#:~:text=The%20metaphilosophy%20of%20naturalism%20is%20about%20the%20nature,naturalist%20philosophy%20may%20be%20called%20an%20“informed%20naturalist.”
From my perspective, a metaphilosophy is very much like a world view, and will be based upon what William Halverson called a "touchstone proposition" in his book, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, 4th Edition (page 414). Although Halverson didn't use the term metaphilosophy, I that the overarching world views he presented in that book (not just naturalism but ethical theism and transcendentalism) would count as metaphilosophies.
The Wikipedia article on metaphilosophy identifies it as "the philosophy of philosophy" and traces the term back to Morris Lazerowitz in the 1940's. For Lazerowitz the word meant "the investigation of the nature of philosophy." Since the word philosophy literally means "the love of knowledge" this would make metaphilosophy the investigation of our love of knowledge. (The metaphilosophy of naturalism has to be very much concerned with our relationship to knowledge and with the relationship of knowledge to the world—a central theme of my version of naturalism is that we've got this all conflated.)
I use metaphilosophy in the sense of an overarching philosophical "family"—underneath which there can be many related members of the family. The three metaphilosophies I see are naturalism (touchstone proposition: physical stuff first, mind stuff evolved into existence later), supernaturalism (touchstone proposition: mind stuff first, physical stuff later), and panpsychism (neither physical stuff nor mind stuff was first but both present from the beginning).
I believe that naturalism (properly constructed) is not just a philosophical position but also a scientific hypothesis. I might even call it a meta-hypothesis.
The idea is that the theory of evolution is well-recognized as a theory which ties together and unifies many different sciences—it is in essence a meta-theory. Scientists may coherently make conflicting assertions about the drivers of evolution, but it is no longer possible to coherently remove evolution from the sciences—it is simply too essential to our understanding of biology, ecology, neuroscience, paleontology, geology, medicine, etc. Thus the status of evolution is that of not just a theory but a meta-theory: it ties almost everything together.
I see naturalism (if properly constructed) as a scientific hypothesis which expands the unifying concept of evolution into cognitive science as well as into traditional philosophical realms, such as philosophy of science (explaining why science is necessarily empirical) and epistemology (explaining why the brain/consciousness/knowledge system evolved and the how of its relationship to the world). You could flip this around and say that naturalism (properly constructed) allows science (and its unifying concept of evolution) an open door to invade these traditional philosophical areas.
My version of naturalism—unlike Halverson's take on it—dismisses determinism as a misunderstanding of the observer-independent world. Determinism mistakenly maps our explanations (which are most useful when deterministic rather than probabilistic) onto the observer-independent world due to knowledge and the world getting conflated. (A modern understanding of neuroscience helps us identify this mistake.)
SYNERGY META + Philosophy - Interdimensional META & Physics
This is an interesting discussion, and thank you for your response.
Continuing from the previous discussion, "METAPhilosophy & Naturalism" (https://dwightlyman.substack.com/p/preface-to-atheism/comment/67869150?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1awqlr
It is great when naturalism is done well. Or it could come from supernaturalism (spiritual).
And because I believe that truth is singular, then it doesn't matter which direction it comes from, it will inevitably lead to one truth.
And the role of metaphilosophy here is to see where the side of absoluteness lies, and then look at the bigger picture to conclude in which direction it is leading.
In the case of evolution, the issue is actually the same with theism.
God Of The Gaps
Where, when there is a deadlock, it is simply explained that it is due to God. And this concept of God is considered unclear by naturalism. However, the possibility of God is acknowledged by theism, making this possibility the answer to unsolved mysteries. Although this is later known in science as the "God of the gaps," where science views religion as taking the easy way out when confused, to avoid the impression of a deadlock, it is said that it is from God. Yet, for theists, when there is a deadlock, the final solution that is considered possible is God, so God is included.
The basic principle is simple. When there is a possibility, it is not a problem to involve it.
Time Of The Gaps
This is similar to the case of evolution, where from observed examples of evolution, it is possible to infer the involvement of millions of years.
And when science also faces a deadlock, consciously or not, science also uses the possibility that is considered to exist, in this case involving "time," where the mystery is solved because "there is a process of millions of years." So this is also a gap, namely the "time of the gaps."
In reality, both "God of the gaps" from religion and "time of the gaps" from science represent the same pattern in understanding possibilities. So, apart from other arguments, at this point, the position of science is no more scientific than religion. Both have gaps that are not empirically proven, only seen as possibilities.
Bias Patterns
From the side of testing, it's the same. Even though science has gaps like religion, and although their methodologies differ, the pattern is essentially the same. Science emphasizes empiricism and neglects the spiritual dimension, while religion is seen as emphasizing spirituality and neglecting empiricism.
Imbalance. Both, in addition to having gaps, also have methodological imbalances, where one rejects metaphysics and the other rejects materialism entirely.
Anticipation. One will be more advanced than the other if science accepts metaphysics and religion accepts empiricism.
Balance. The challenge is how to balance both without making either feel coerced into the other’s realm. Religion should not feel forced into empiricism, ignoring transcendence, and science should not feel forced entirely into metaphysics, neglecting physics.
A New Paradigm
This is where metaphilosophy plays a role, bridging "metaphysics" and "physics" with two fundamental principles:
1. Principle of Consistency
That from whatever direction—"metaphysics" or "physics," "spiritual" or "empirical"—what needs to be emphasized is how consistent it is found in both "physics" and "metaphysics," so that its probability can be accepted, and its objectivity (practicality) can be more widely acknowledged.
2. Absoluteness
If so far, "physics" and "science" are identified with probability and causality, then both "metaphysics" and "physics" can be united by something more fundamental than relative causality, namely united through absoluteness.
This is where metaphilosophy (for me) plays a role as a philosophy that explores absoluteness, so that the opposing dimensions (metaphysics & physics) can be bridged to see towards a specific, non-ambiguous truth.
Synergy. A meta-effort that brings philosophy, which previously separated from science (philosophy being considered too abstract and non-objective), into a philosophy that is not only rational but also realistic and universal.
So, I will not argue further about theism versus atheism, but rather look at this polemic from the perspective of a new paradigm in reasoning, namely the paradigm of metaphilosophy.
For me, that is what metaphilosophy should do—not just researching how to philosophize (philosophy about philosophy), but also thinking outside the box (creatively understanding truth across dimensions).
Universal Approach
Regardless of whether absoluteness can serve as the basis of relativity, which leads to polemics and doubts about whether such absoluteness can be acknowledged, that is another story. But the main point is that metaphilosophy should go beyond merely studying philosophy—philosophy about philosophy (since the meaning of "meta" itself can be understood as "beyond," and there is a path in that direction). If "meta" can be placed in a broader perspective—across dimensions—then it's not a problem to understand "meta" as more than just philosophy about philosophy but rather "philosophy about universalism." In this way, naturalism and metaphysics are no longer at odds but instead are used together (in synergy) to view reality more balancedly, so the bigger picture can be understood more comprehensively.
Step by Step
So if universal absoluteness is still quite unfamiliar in the fields of philosophy and science, that’s not a problem, as long as metaphilosophy’s motivation is to make things clearer than before (even though there are still limits, it is an effort to reason better than before).
It just takes time to delve into the truth and realize that there is absoluteness there.