Metaphysical

Metaphysical questions are defined as coming Ð''after' Physics, or as having answers that lie Ð''beyond' Nature. Now, if such questions were simply beyond the reach of science to answer then we could argue that the existence and intractability of these questions is evidence for the inadequacy of the scientific method, the falsity of the Ð''scientific view', or the incoherence of the beliefs of many scientists. This is not an uncommon argument.

However, metaphysical questions are not simply undecidable in this sense. They are undecidable in a formal mathematical sense. That is, all reasonable answers to a metaphysical question give rise to contradictions within the formal systems of reasoning that give rise to the question. That is to say, metaphysical questions cannot be decided within the system of reasoning used by the person who is asking the question. This is for the same reasons that Ð''GÐ"¶del-sentences' cannot be decided within the formal systems in which they arise.

What this means is that if it were found to be the case that either answer to a metaphysical question were true or false then this would contradict our reason and call into question our whole notion of logic and illogic, consistency and inconsistency. It would mean that the explanation of our existence contradicts our reason. This presents us with a stark choice of view. We must conclude either that metaphysical questions are formally undecidable or that the true explanation for the existence of our universe contradicts reason.

Therefore, the original defense of natural science, by men like Descartes and Spinoza, was not so much a refutation as a quiet beheading of preceding philosophies. That is, modern science refutes metaphysical questions not by addressing them but by ignoring them. Its view of nature is purely material, devoid of purpose or meaning. As cited by Overby, "Natural science tells us how things work, but not what they are or why they do what they do." (Overby, 2005) It is fair to say that modern science does not even have a definition of nature, including human nature. The project of the modern natural scientist is the material inquiry into objects that are subject to inquiry through material manipulation.

While we can never know more about an object than what experience teaches us, the concepts of our understanding help us to pose metaphysical questions that experience cannot answer. It is only natural, then, that we should consult reason when experience lets us down.

We may distinguish metaphysics from mathematics and science by saying that the former has bounds while the latter two have only limits. Both math and science are complete in and of themselves: there are no insoluble problems in these fields, no questions that cannot be answered given enough time, insight, and progress. They are limited only in that their scope is not absolutely general. Math cannot answer metaphysical or moral questions, and science cannot give us insight into things in themselves. However, morality and metaphysics are not needed in mathematical explanations and the nature of things in themselves does not affect the progress of science, which deals only with the objects of experience.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is bounded: reason poses questions for itself that it cannot answer. In investigating metaphysical questions, reason bumps up against boundaries that it cannot press beyond. That is, metaphysics asks questions about the nature of things in themselves, but we cannot gain definite knowledge of anything outside experience.

However, these bounds can be useful. While we cannot know what is beyond them, we can infer from the existence of these bounds that there is something beyond them (i.e. things in themselves) and we can infer the connection these things in themselves must have with the perceptible world. While we cannot reach beyond experience to things in themselves, we can examine the relation between things in themselves and our experience.

Our knowledge is structured by categories and concepts that are applicable only to experience, so we cannot apply these categories and concepts in any meaningful way to things beyond experience. While math and science are limited, metaphysics is bounded. That means that there are metaphysical puzzles to which there is no solution. The ideas of reason deal with precisely that. "What is the nature of the soul?". to which we cannot give an answerÐ'--not because we do not know the answer, but because there is no answer to give. Metaphysics tries to deal with things in themselves, but all our concepts and intuitions are suited only to dealing with appearances. Our reason poses riddles for us for which there is no answer. Metaphysics is an attempt to reach for things that are beyond our grasp.

If metaphysics is bounded in such a way that we can never answer any of the questions it poses, we might think of it as a useless discipline. If one takes a strict view of philosophical inquiry, then there can be no knowledge or knowable reality that does not require a leap of faith.

All knowledge is predicated on the existence of A Priori knowledge, knowledge that exists independent of experience. Essentially stating that a tree does make noise when it