BPYE-141

METAPHYSICS

SCHOOL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY AND TRANS-DISCIPLINARY STUDIES (SOITS)

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

NEW DELHI

1
EXPERT COMMITTEE
Prof. V. T. Sebastian, Dr. Ruplekha Khullar
Visiting Professor, JNU Department of Philosophy
& Professor of Philosophy, Punjab Janki Devi Memorial College,
University, Chandigarh University of Delhi

Dr. Sudnya N. Kulkarni, Dr. Meeta Nath,

Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy
Janki Devi Memorial College, Ramajs College, University of Delhi
University of Delhi

Dr. Garima Mani Tripathi

Dr. Amit Kumar Pradhan, Department of Philosophy Mata Sundri
Department of Philosophy College for Women, University of Delhi
Ramjas College, University of Delhi
Dr. Vijay Kumar
Dr. Bins Sebastian, Department of Philosophy, Shyama Prasad
Department of Philosophy Mukherjee College for Women,
St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi
University of Delhi
Ms. Priyam Mathur,
Mr. Sumesh M. K. Consultant (Philosophy),
Department of Philosophy SOITS, IGNOU
Faculty of Arts, University of Delhi

SOITS FACULTY

Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, Prof. B. Rupini, Prof. Shubhangi Vaidya,

Dr. Sadananda Sahoo

2
COURSE PREPARATION TEAM

BLOCK UNIT WRITER

Block 1 Nature of Metaphysics
Unit 1 Introduction to Metaphysics Dr. Manjula Saxena
Unit 2 Basics Concepts of Metaphysics Dr. Manjula Saxena
Unit 3 Methods Dr. Gigi Purayidathi
Unit 4 Theories of Causation Dr. Anish Chakravarty
Block 2 Meaning of Being
Unit 4 Being and Essence Dr. Ivo Coelho
Unit 5 Substance and Accidents Dr. Josephy Martis
Unit 6 Matter and Form Dr. Francis Aruckal
Unit 7 Appearance and Reality Dr. Mahak Uppal
Block 3 Nature of Finite Being
Unit 8 Entity Dr. Bosco Correya
Unit 9 Person Dr. Shaji Parayankuzhy
Unit 10 Freedom Prof. Mathew Vengaloor
Block 4 Indian Metaphysics
Unit 12 Theories of Reality Dr. Rinki Jadwani
Unit 13 Theories of Causation Dr. Dinesh Patidar
Unit 14 Universals and Particulars Dr. Ashutosh Vyas
CONTENT EDITORS
Dr. Shriddha Shah, Hindu College, University of Delhi
Dr. Tarang Kapoor, Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi
Dr. Rinki Jadwani, Delhi Technological University
Dr. Mahak Uppal, Hindu College, University of Delhi
Dr. Ashutosh Vyas, Consultant (Philosophy), SOITS, IGNOU

FORMAT EDITORS
Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. Ashutosh Vyas, Consultant (Philosophy), SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi

PROGRAMME COORDINATOR
Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapur, SOITS, IGNOU, New Delhi

Academic Consultation: Dr. Ashutosh Vyas, SOITS, IGNOU

PRODUCTION TEAM

3
Contents
Block 1: Nature of Metaphysics

Unit 1: Introduction to Metaphysics

Unit 2: Basic Concepts of Metaphysics

Unit 3: Methods

Unit 4: Theories of Causation

Block 2: Meaning of Being

Unit 1: Being and Essence

Unit 2: Substance and Accidents

Unit 3: Matter and Form

Unit 4: Appearance and Reality

Block 3: Nature of Finite Being

Unit 1: Entity

Unit 2. Person

Unit 3. Freedom

Block 4: Indian Metaphysics

Unit 1: Theories of Reality

Unit 2: Theories of Causation

Unit 3: Universals and Particulars

4
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Metaphysics, a discipline with a long history, has been conceived in different ways. A widely
held view is that it is the most general and most fundamental of all the disciplines. Its aim is to
identify the nature and structure of all that there is. Central to this project is the interpretation of
the relation between Being and beings, between one and many.
The problem of Being and being (one and many) can be said to be the most fundamental
metaphysical problem under which anything that exists falls. On this problem of metaphysics,
what the metaphysician is supposed to do is to identify the relevant kinds, to specify the
characteristics or features peculiar to each, and to indicate the ways those very general kinds are
related to each other. It turns out, however, that metaphysicians have disagreed about this
problem. For example, Aristotle and the Medieval (Western) philosophers give us two different
accounts of it. Sometimes, they characterize it as the attempt to identify the first causes, in
particular, God or the Unmoved Mover, and at times, as the very general science of being qua
being. They believed, however, that these two characterizations identify the same discipline. The
modern and contemporary rationalists, by contrast, expanded the scope of metaphysics. They
have taken it to be concerned not merely with the existence and nature of God, but also with
mind and body, the immortality of the soul, and free-will.
The Empiricists and Kant were critical of both Aristotelian and rationalist conceptions of
metaphysics, arguing that they seek to transcend the limits of human knowledge. Hence, it is not
easy to say what metaphysics is. If one looks to works in metaphysics, one finds quite different
perspectives of the discipline. Sometimes these perspectives seek to be descriptive, to provide us
with an account of what philosophers who have been called metaphysicians do. Sometimes, they
are normative. They represent attempts to identify what philosophers ought to be doing when
they do metaphysics. But descriptive or normative, these perspectives give such different
accounts of the subject matter and methodology appropriate to metaphysics that the neutral
observer is likely to think that they must be characterizing different disciplines. Disagreement
about the nature of metaphysics is tied to its long history. Philosophers have been doing or trying
to do something they have called metaphysics for more than 2,500 years. The results of their
efforts have been accounts with a wide variety of subject matters and approaches. These various
subject matters and approaches are implicit in this course on “Metaphysics.”

5
In this course of we have presented 4 blocks comprising 14 units.
Block 1 is on Nature of Metaphysics. In this block learner will study etymology and definition
of Metaphysics, nature of metaphysical object, various metaphysical positions, some basic
concepts, and methods, etc.. This block tries to present both, Indian and Western traditions.
Block 2 deals with Meaning of Being. The Block begins with an introduction to Being and
essence and then proceeds to study in detail the issues/problems of substance and accidents,
matter and form, and appearance and reality.
Block 3 studies Nature of Finite Being, which is either mere entities or entities that are persons.
The persons are fundamentally both intellectual, capable of understanding and knowing things,
and free beings who can choose and decide things despite being limited in their exercise of
freedom.
Block 4 Indian Metaphysics deals with the issues/problems of reality, causation and universal
and particulars as they appear in various schools of Indian philosophy. What is the nature of
reality? What is the relation between cause and effect? How does effect come into existence? On
which basis we call something as something?, etc. are some of the central questions of this block.

Note on Referencing style: Since there are several styles which may be adopted for referencing
and bibliographical citation, the learner would find that different blocks and units given in this
study material exhibit an understandable variability in the style of referring being used both for
“in-text” and “end-text” citations.

6
 BPYE-141

Block- 1

NATURE OF METAPHYSICS

1
BLOCK INTRODUCTION
It is certain that everyone has an experience of ‘something.’ This experience of ‘something’ is
an inescapable experience. One may escape from a particular experience, but one cannot
escape from experiencing something. The most fundamental and radical question one can raise
is this: ‘Is there anything at all?’ The answer can either be a negation or an affirmation. If it is
a negation it should be so: ‘There is nothing.’ Such an answer is self-contradictory as the
answer affirms a negation which is again ‘something’. Hence absolute negation is impossible.
For, paradoxically, every absolute negation presupposes an absolute affirmation upon which
the negation rests. An affirmative experience of ‘something’ is not ‘that which is not’ but ‘that
which is’ or ‘Being’, which is the specific subject-matter of metaphysics investigated in this
block. This block, with 4 units, explores into the etymology of metaphysics, its definition,
some metaphysical problems and discussions, fundamental notions and principles, methods
and the concept of causation.

Unit 1, “Introduction to Metaphysics” considers General Metaphysics or Fundamental

Ontology as inquiry into being as being(Being). In this unit learner will study nature of the
object of Metaphysics, and its branches. The aim of this unit is to make the nature of
metaphysics understandable with the help of some metaphysical discussions.

Unit 2, “Basic Concepts in Metaphysics” explains various fundamental concepts of

Metaphysics and also of its various branches. The objective of this unit is to familiarise
learners with basic concepts that are common to both philosophy in general and metaphysics
in particular.
Unit 3, “Methods,” inquires into the methods used in metaphysics. Metaphysics starts from
experience, rests on experience and uses reflection which accompanies it. Though
metaphysics uses logical analysis, logical deduction and advances to logical syntheses, its
specificity is the use of transcendental method: transcendental analysis and transcendental
deduction rooted in the necessary experience of ‘something’ or Being itself.

Unit 4 is “Theories of Causation” deals with the concept of causation. In this unit learner will
study the problem of causation in Aristotle and Kant and also the refutation of causation by
Hume.

2
UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO METAPHYSICS*
Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Nature of objects of Metaphysics
1.3 Various branches of metaphysics and its own position in them
1.4 Let us sum up
1.5 Key words
1.6 further readings and references
1.7 Answers to know your progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this unit are,
• to familiarize learners the meaning and subject-matter of metaphysics.
• to acquainted learners with the distinction of Metaphysics, per se (general metaphysics)
and its various branches (special metaphysics).
• to discuss various branches of metaphysics.
• To understand the nature of metaphysics through various metaphysical
discussions/questions/debates/instances.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this unit (and of other subsequent units) is to explain the idea of metaphysics as
presented and discussed by ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers (Descartes, Spinoza,
Berkeley, Kant, etc.). There has been noticed a change in the nature of the idea/subject
matter/questions and their solutions, of metaphysics in the contemporary western philosophy.
The term Metaphysics is a combination of two words- ‘meta’, literally meaning ‘beyond/after’
and the word ‘physics’ which is a collective noun for, or the word referring to, the entire
physical existence comprising of objects and phenomena that we can and do know or experience
through our sense organs. It is derived from the Greek word ‘meta ta physica’ meaning ‘after the
things of Nature’. Thus, it may refer to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human

*
Dr. Manjula Saxena, Former Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Indraprastha College for
Women, University of Delhi.
3
sense. * In modern philosophical terminology metaphysics refers to the study of what cannot be
reached through objective studies of the material reality. It is a fact that we know the material
reality through our sense perception. With our senses of sight and touch, we know an object to
be existing by occupying some space and some time. Through our ears we hear sounds that may
sometimes be meaningless or be fully meaningful. The meaningful communicative ones
comprise of sentences, statements, etc. which on the whole, form an organic unity of multiple
words, each one of which is meaningful in itself. These verbal or literary unities are invariably
judged on the criterion of truth or falsity either in totality or even in parts. All this happens
within the physical world only, where again, we engage in or experience voluntary
action/actions of our own or of others and also always consciously judge these to be good or
bad. Now this matter as the owner or locus of material, perceivable qualities is inferred to be
from our perception of the latter. Similarly, we infer the presence of goodness from our
recognition of the goodness of an act or acts. These, indirect or merely inferred realities, are still
undeniably present in what we perceive. So, looking for and trying to know them becomes
obligatory for us such that finding the real or true and the good is an integral part of our daily
activities. Metaphysics regards these as being more real because they are always present in all
their instances. What is always present is real and so it is also the object of knowledge. But
knowing these is not done through sense perception and requires going beyond the merely
physical world. This is the reason why and how Metaphysics arises.

1.2 NATURE OF THE OBJECTS OF METAPHYSICS

Within our everyday experiences of the objects that keep on changing and actions that we
frequently do, we find that their qualities of truth and goodness are qualifying many of them at
the same time. This means that unlike the particular physical objects that they qualify, these non-
physical or abstract qualifying factors are true generalities or universals transcending the
boundaries of space and time. This is the reason why they can and do continue to qualify objects
and actions even in future and in fact, forever. Not bound by space and time, they are
transcendent of the world, intangible and abstract or, in short, are of the nature of an “Idea”
understood as a concept. This Idea is not like the everyday ideas that keep on coming in and
going away from our minds. Metaphysics uses the word Idea in the special sense of being
common to many, being abstract, and yet a necessary or essential factor for the object’s identity.

*
It is also believed that the discipline metaphysics got its name from the book Metaphysics, written by Aristotle.
4
An object is real or even true because it has truth in it but yet does not exhaust it. Thus, the
metaphysical Ideas can and actually do qualify many physical, limited particular objects at the
same time and still remain open to participation by more such objects. As compared to the
physical particulars they are abstract universals which constitute the very essence, for instance,
of a good action or even a true statement. To clarify the distinction between such Ideas and the
common transitory ideas in our mind, Metaphysicians/Metaphysicist * have also given the name
‘Concept’. The Greek metaphysician Plato defines a concept as the “unchanging, common
essence of things”. These concepts or Ideas, unlike the ever-changing physical object, remain
unchanged in themselves and it is precisely for this reason that they are the true objects of true
knowledge. Greek Metaphysicians like Parmenides, Pythagoras, Democritus, Heraclitus,
Plotinus, Plato, and Aristotle; and modern ones like Bradley, McTaggart; maintain that these
Concepts alone can be the true objects of true knowledge. To show that these are necessary for
the very identity of a physical, tangible object, Plato in his dialogue The Theaetetus goes on to
assert that these ‘Ideas are fixed like patterns in things’. About them we cannot form opinions,
which in essence are uncertain and changeable, but we can only know them for sure. Here the
metaphysician’s argument would be that if, as is true of the physical object, what we are trying
to know is constantly changing even during the process of it being known, how can we say at the
end of the knowing process that what we ended up knowing is the same as what we had started
to know. So, the object of true knowledge must be unchanging. What does not change are the
ideas or concepts of values like those of truth and goodness. Physical objects bound by spatial
and temporal boundaries undergo constant change and so they cannot be the subject matter of
knowledge that remains certain and true forever. Ideas or concepts, despite characterising
numerous physical objects, remain open to participation by any number of other such objects.
They are transcendent of space and Time and thus the true objects of true unchanging
knowledge. As they are in their wholeness transcendent of space and time, and abstract, so they
are not the objects of sense perception, for the latter can only be things that are limited by space
and time. Furthermore, to know them we have to go beyond the physical world of sense and thus
do metaphysics. In other words, true knowledge of the ‘Real’ can only come only via
metaphysical thinking.
Summarily it may be noted that Metaphysics is a philosophical study of realities that transcend
the physical world. Such realities cannot be perceived, though their examples can be. We see a
*
See, Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics, A Very Short Introduction, p. 105.
5
good action but goodness as such is not a matter of sense knowledge. Its reality cannot be denied
and is compelling for our thought. Then as it can and does characterise many actions and as it
never gets exhausted by any number of its instances, it is a universal and therefore also abstract.
Whatever is tangible is bound by space and time. Goodness is not bound by any limit so it is
abstract and as it can have innumerable good actions under it as it’s examples, it is an abstract
universal and more real as it transcends space and time. Such realities transcend the physical
universe, and being unchangeable they are more real than the latter. Being real and unchanging,
they alone are the true objects of knowledge and to know them one is required to go beyond the
physical. This is accomplished by metaphysics which studies these realities because they alone
are unchanging, beginningless, endless, and abstract universals. It can be said that Metaphysics
is closest to being pure philosophy (Philosophy of Being of beings).
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided in the end of the unit.
1. What is metaphysics?
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..

1.3 VARIOUS BRANCHES OF METAPHYSICS AND ITS OWN

POSITION IN THEM
Since metaphysics studies whatever has a reality beyond the world that we perceive, and since
we perceive the particulars and not generalities which are abstract, metaphysics comes to have
many branches that study the particular objects of sense and not the abstract generalities or
universals. This is one main difference between metaphysics and its branches. * Another
difference between the two is that whereas these branches have their own presuppositions,
metaphysics as pure philosophy has no presuppositions/ postulates and does not take anything
for granted. However, what is Common to all branches of metaphysics and even the sciences,

*
“Christian Wolff distinguished between ‘general metaphysics’ (ontology), the study of being as such, and the
various branches of ‘special metaphysics’, which study the being of objects of various special sorts, such as souls
and material bodies.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on “Metaphysic”, Section 1).
6
but not to metaphysics itself, are the following postulates:
1.3.1 Postulates common to Metaphysics and Sciences
1.3.1.1 Reality of the object of knowledge
All sciences and branches of philosophy like logic, ethics, and aesthetics hold the
physical world to be real and the object of knowledge. For them, everything is
knowable in terms of its qualities. Conversely, Metaphysics disagrees and says that
the abstract universals like values of truth, beauty, and goodness and other concepts
like those of matter; quality; relations like conjunction, and inherence; etc.
(mentioned by the Vaiśeṣika school of Indian Philosophy) in their original form, and
not as they are found in an object, are unknowable to sense perception as well as to
the mind.
1.3.1.2 Reality of the subject of knowledge
It is the second postulate of all sciences and branches of Metaphysics. They never doubt
the reality of the knower which for them is a complex of sense-perception plus mind. The
French rationalist philosopher Descartes maintains that the only thing I cannot doubt or
deny is the fact that I know or I think. From this undeniable fact I can deduce, without
taking the help of sense perception at all, the truth that ‘I exist’. So, for all branches of
metaphysics, reality of the mind as the knower is unquestionable and therefore a
postulate. Here too, Metaphysics would disagree and maintain that it is not always the
mind which knows. Actual knower is the soul which is not the same as the knowing
mind and the reality of this knowing soul is to be admitted even in the absence of its
knowledge by our senses and the mind. The soul is the real knower because it alone can
know the Reality truly by becoming one with it, and realizing the highest Reality
possible. This knower, i.e., the soul is so subjective that it can never be made an object of
thought or sense knowledge. So, metaphysics presupposes the Reality of the soul which
defies all sense and intellectual knowledge, and therefore it is not real as the ordinary
knower.
1.3.1.3 Knowability of the real
It is the third postulate of all branches of metaphysics. For sciences and other branches of
philosophy, whatever is real in any sense whatsoever, is also knowable or can be known
by us. Metaphysics differs again and says that the real knower which is our soul can never
be made an object of thought and be known. It is a reality which is permanent,
7
beginningless and endless, and so subjective that it always remains the knower and can
never be known. At most it can only be realised as suggested by the Indian concept of
‘ātmānubhūti’. Along with these presuppositions that are common to all branches of
metaphysics, each branch also has its own distinctive postulates and mainly these develop
into many highly specialised studies. These are:
A) Cosmology: which studies the origin, fundamental structure, nature and dynamics of
the universe.
B) Ontology – which involves studying the real or the sat which is real in the sense of
being eternal, beginningless and endless.
C) Philosophy of Space and Time - which the transcendental metaphysician Immanuel
Kant has dealt with at great length, concluding that these two are Forms in which we
necessarily perceive the existent physical objects. These forms are like containers that our
mind supplies or imposes on to objects when we perceive them. These are subjective
because they exist in our minds but are objectively necessary as we invariably impose
them on the object that we perceive.
Finally, to know the possible means of knowing what is held to be real, Philosophy, along
with metaphysics, goes on to discuss the epistemological position.
D) Epistemology - being the name for all theories of knowledge, forms a very big part of
philosophical investigation simply because man has curiosity to know such things as
would make him satisfy his Love for Wisdom - the real meaning of philosophy.
Accordingly, ‘metaphysics also is not merely a faith in, but an inquiry into the nature of
that which exists forever and is, therefore, truly real. Cosmos, which is studied in
cosmology, is, in itself, a concept which is illustrated in and through all that exists within
it. It refers to the entire universe, encompassing the tangible and the intangible; the
particular and the general; the physical and the abstract; or even the non-physical like laws
of physics, biology and so on. Similarly, metaphysics is the view that every object is
dependent on its Idea as well. Actually, it is just a participant in its Idea or concept and
since concept itself remains unchanged despite the participation by innumerable particular
tangibles (each of which is its own kind), Idea or Concept alone is the true object of true
knowledge. For example, the word ‘flower’ in itself is a class concept in which all flowers
of all kinds participate. In similar fashion there are concepts or ideas for all kinds of
tangible or even intangible things, and since these concepts remain unchanged through all
8
changes that their instances undergo, these are the real objects of knowledge. The most
common example given by metaphysicians is that of the concept of humanity in which all
human beings must participate in order to be called human. So, what we should really try
to understand is what is meant by the concept humanity, and not so much the individual
human beings. This emphasis on abstract generality implies the metaphysical belief that
abstract universals and not tangible particulars are more real and so better or greater or
even truer objects of true knowledge. This is precisely why metaphysics also becomes
closest to idealism in ontology, and to deduction and intuition in epistemology. This
reality of metaphysics can be studied through many methods collectively called
Epistemology. Epistemology branches off mainly into two theories of knowledge –
1) Rationalism - the view that the source of knowledge is mind.
2) Empiricism - the view that the source of knowledge is sense perception.
The former uses the deductive method which involves beginning with one undeniable
truth like Descartes’ ‘I think’ and inferring from it the second truth which is ‘therefore I
am’. Empiricism, on the other hand, uses induction, which involves observing many
objects of the same kind and discovering what is common to them. For example, we
observe many human beings and find that despite their many individual differences they
have something in common. It is the (concept of) humanity which cannot be perceived but
is necessarily assumed to be there in all human beings. Arriving at one general from
observing many particulars is induction, and the idealist Plato called this the ‘empirico-
inductive’ method. These two, along with the other methods of metaphysics, will be
explained in detail later.
E) Finally, within Metaphysics is included axiology which is the study of values like that
of truth, beauty and goodness. These in themselves are generalities that are found in
particulars as their intangible quality. Truth is to be found in all true sentences as also in
that which exists forever. Such truth, in Indian Aupaniṣadik and Vedānta philosophies is
‘Brahman’ and in western metaphysics of Bradley, it is the ‘Absolute ‘which is non
relative. It is a complex of Truth (sat), consciousness (cit), and bliss (ānanda), it is not
unreal (asat), unconscious, and painful. It is important to try to know what Brahman or the
Absolute is like because we can have its direct intellectual knowledge. Brahman can only
be known through intuition which is to know something by becoming one with it.
Check your Progress II
9
Note: a) Use the space provided for answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided in the end of the unit.
1. Why is metaphysics necessary?
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..

1.3. EPISTEMOLOGY : METHODS OF METAPHYSICAL

STUDY
Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which studies the fundamental nature of the Reality,
the first principle of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, possibility,
etc. Since, it tries to understand Reality and develop theories about what is held to be existent
and how we know it, it has to use and examine each and every method which philosophy uses to
obtain knowledge of what is held to be real. Some of these methods are:
1.3.1 Induction
As we have seen, metaphysics as the study of what is real in the sense of being unchanging,
beginningless, and endless, is necessary. These unchanging universal essences of things get the
name Idea or concept. Holding these to be real, is Idealism or conceptualism. So, in its ontology,
metaphysics promotes Idealism. Idealism is to be distinguished from Materialism which is the
view that sensible matter is real; and also, from Realism which is the view that the subject,
object and also the medium of knowledge which most commonly is sense perception plus
reception and interpretation of the sensations received thus, are all real. Distinguished thus from
both Materialism and Realism, Metaphysics is idealistic and its subject matter is the unchanging
common Ideas of things. Yet, in the initial stages of its knowing process, Metaphysics uses the
common philosophical methods like induction, deduction, analysis of the whole into parts and
then synthesis of the parts thus analysed. It is in and during the stage of analysing the whole
object into its parts that metaphysics discovers that there is something within the object that
cannot be analysed further into parts. This is simple and identical to indivisible abstract,
subjective identity of the object or being, like the human element in human beings or the good in
all good actions. In response to the natural question arising here ‘what is humanity?’
Metaphysics would first observe many human beings, analyse them mentally only into their
10
various characteristics and would finally and necessarily arrive at what cannot be analysed
further. It is their humanity which they all share in common which is abstract and yet so simple,
identical as unchanging yet necessary for all to be called human beings. The initial observation
of many human beings and then arriving at the common Idea of humanity is the stage of
induction which the metaphysician calls the ‘empirico-inductive’ method. What justifies the use
of this method here is the typically metaphysical faith that an Idea or concept, as Plato says, is
both immanent in and transcendent of, the physical world. So, to know it’s immanent part like
humanity or the goodness of a good action, we have to begin with sense observation and then
from them arrive at or form a general truth about the analysed. This, by the metaphysician’s own
admission is the necessary but only the initial stage of knowing the true object of true knowledge
which is the unchanging Ultimate Reality comprising of (but indivisible in) values like Truth,
Beauty, and Goodness.
1.3.2 Deduction
Deduction has a more important role to play in metaphysics simply because it does not use sense
perception at all. It is the method of mathematics too. Here metaphysics begins with
presupposing that there is an undeniable fact like the Cartesian fact of thinking or ‘I think’. It is
undeniable because the more I deny it the more I affirm its reality as the act of denying itself
involves thinking. The rationalist Descartes said ‘I think therefore I am’. So, my existence is
established by the fact of my thinking and others by the fact of their thinking. To this fact of
thinking, Descartes gives the name ‘cogito’ and to the truth deduced from it, ‘Ergo sum’. In
totality it is ‘cogito ergo sum’ meaning ‘I think therefore I am.’ Here no help from any sense
perception is needed yet this does not satisfy some metaphysician. Reason is that Descartes’
primary truth is also establishing the reality of just the fact of thinking and of the thinking mind.
Both are unable to prove the Reality of the eternal truth of the abstract like the various values
that transcend all thinking but can only be realised when we ourselves pursue them and thus, if
only for a short while become one with them.
1.3.3 Realisation or Intuition
We do become good and thus know it when we do good deeds. Same is the case with other
values that form the being of the ultimate metaphysical reality. Some metaphysicians admit the
instrumental or extrinsic utility of the philosophical methods of induction and deduction but
does not hold them capable of giving us direct, immediate knowledge or awareness of what the

11
real truth or goodness in themselves are like. This comes only when we ourselves become true
or good, wholly or in part by doing good or in being truthful. This is the method of realisation of
the ultimate, un-mediated or immediate, completely certain. It has such an effect that one who
has realised it, cannot but be true or good. To emphasise this fact only, Socrates gave the
indubitable maxim ‘virtue is knowledge’ meaning that the truly knowledgeable cannot but be
virtuous, because there is no medium like mind etc. in between knowledge which can be held to
be the same as knowing it (values) by becoming one with it. This method of realisation has been
called intuition in western philosophy and ‘ātmanubhūti’ in Vedānta schools of Indian
philosophy. The latter is so because we know them in the sense of ourselves becoming one with
them. So, for some metaphysicians, the method to know the ultimate truth is intuition, but that
does not mean that they criticize other philosophical methods as being totally useless. They just
deny their ultimate intrinsic utility.
The same thing has been done in Indian metaphysics, especially in the orthodox or the Vedic
schools that simply take for granted the authority of the Vedas. They all deny the final reality of
the physical world because of its transitoriness, but at the same time realise that the change
which the physical world necessarily undergoes is relative to some power that doesn’t change.
For example, talking about the self which generally is held to be the knower, Indian orthodox
systems like the Sāṁkhya, Nyaya-Vaiśeṣika, and the Advaita Vedānta, distinguish the
phenomenological from the noumenal (Transcendental) self. Knower of the external world is our
psychological or phenomenological self and this keeps changing according to every bit of the
changing knowledge that it is acquiring. Here comes the one of the main argument of some
schools of Indian metaphysics, that change in knowledge itself presupposes an identical spiritual
self that remains unchanged and identical in and through its experience of changing bits of
knowledge. If, along with a new bit of knowledge, the knower also changes, how can we say
that the newly accredited knowledge is new. So, for knowledge to be possible, it is imperative
that the knower remains unchanged, identical, and a self-same reality. This is the noumenal self
and this alone is identifiable as the purely subjective atman which, in nature, is the same as
Brahman- the ultimate reality. Now as this transcends all transitory knowledge, the Advait
vedāntin Śaṁkarācārya in India and Bradley insist that this reality can be known either through
intuition, or realisation, or indirectly through the method of negation. To the common man
intuition may not happen at all so he, like the philosopher-metaphysician, should remain
satisfied with an indirect knowledge of the ultimate reality, i.e., by going on affirming what the
12
ultimate Reality or Brahman is not. So, for the common man Brahman as the ultimate object of
knowledge as realisation is sat (true) because Brahman is not false (asat), consciousness (cit)
because Brahman is not unconscious (jaḍa) and bliss (ānanda) because Brahman is not of the
nature of sorrow (‘dukhaswarūp’). This is the method of ‘neti neti’, i.e., going on denying what
Brahman is not and to the common man this alone is available.
Indian orthodox systems, like their western counterparts, also do not deny the instrumental
reality of the physical world and hold it to be a necessary object of initial stages of the knowing
process. At this stage we come to familiarise ourselves with the general concepts that include all
examples of their own. Thus, the Sāṁkhya system very logically arrives at the two ultimate
concepts of Puruṣa (the conscious but immobile principle) and Prakrti (unconscious but mobile
as movement is innate in matter from their observation of the mind and matter in the world).
Again, analysing the physical world which is the object of our immediate sense knowledge,
Nyāya Vaiśeṣika affirms the final reality of the concepts of matter (dravya), quality (Guṇa) and
their relations of conjunction (Saṁyoga) and inherence (Samavāyi).
What becomes clear from the above is that metaphysics, in its ontology, admits of four realms of
reality. These are
A) The realm of essence or Ideas or concepts
B) The realm of matter
C) The realm of Truth.
D) The realm of spirit.
All are held to be objects of some or the other kind of knowledge obtainable in different ways,
but knowledge of the Truth (sat) as the eternal unchangeable identical abstract is the highest and
it can only be obtained by our spirit or our soul. Method adopted by the soul to know the Truth
is intuition or subject object identification- an insistence that makes metaphysics necessarily
monistic, rising above dualism and pluralism. But these again for metaphysics are important
because while becoming a monk, these two are to be transcended and not denied at any stage.
Knowledge thus, is a process of ontological progress and in this manner it can be obtained only
in metaphysics, here knowledge and it’s object become just one.

1.4 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have discussed various issues related to metaphysics. Starting with the
etymological meaning of metaphysics, which is ‘beyond physics (beyond sensory experience)

13
we have discussed how metaphysics can be distinguished from its various branches. The
presumption here is that metaphysics is the study of being as being (Being of beings). This idea
of metaphysics is related to Ancient, Medieval and to modern traditions of western philosophy.
Metaphysics deals with various issues, such as causation, relation, problems of appearance and
reality, being and becoming, universal and particular, nature of finite being etc. It can be said
that one of the main aim of metaphysics is to know the criterion of reality and what is really
Real. Keeping this in mind, some presumptions common to science and various branches of
metaphysics and also methods of induction, deduction and intuition, have been discussed in
brief.

1.5 KEY WORDS

Metaphysics: means beyond metaphysics. It is the study of the questions related to reality.
Epistemology: Study related to various problems related to nature of knowledge, means of
knowledge, etc.
Axiology: Study of goodness, beauty, etc.

1.6 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Mumford, Stephen. Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Sinha, Jadunath. A Manuel of Metaphysics. Delhi: New Central Book Agency, 2016.

1.7 ANSWERS TO KNOW YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1. Metaphysics is the study of what exists beyond the perceivable sense world. It could be the
laws of Nature like causation concepts like , space and time , values like Truth, Goodness and
Beauty and Ideas like those of Humanity, Existence, and even Knowledge,
Check Your Progress II
1. For metaphysician an Idea definable as the unchanging, common essence of things, is the real
object of true knowledge because it is eternal. Although it’s individual, perceivable examples
come and go. This Idea, being beginningless and endless is the same as the eternal ultimate
Reality and in knowing it all distinction between the knower and the known disappears. This
state of knowledge, in Indian philosophy is known as that of ‘ātmānubhūti of Brahmānubhava.

14
UNIT 2 BASIC CONCEPTS OF METAPHYSICS *
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Kinds of Metaphysical Questions
2.3 Ontology
2.4 Epistemology
2.5 Axiology
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.8 Further Readings and References
2.9 Answers to check your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this unit are,
• to familiarise students with the basic concepts that are common to both philosophy in
general and metaphysics in particular.
• to discuss various questions/approaches/issues related to ontology, epistemology and
axiology.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is generally believed that both Philosophy and Metaphysics aim at that knowledge of the
Reality that is forever undeniable, somewhat akin to mathematical knowledge, but definitely
unlike sense perception. For instance for Descartes ‘I think therefore I am’ is the first undeniable
truth. Other Metaphysicians like Immanuel Kant, believed that the thinking self is to be
understood as an agent who can do many things. This can be called ‘the psychological self’. But
then in sleep this self is found to not do anything at all and yet it is there, it is real. So, a
distinction must be drawn between its two dimensions – the doer; and the non-doer yet real. The
former is the Psychological or Phenomenal and the second is the Noumenal Self. Unchanging,

*
Dr. Manjula Saxena, former Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Indraprastha College for
Women, University of Delhi.

15
identical, spiritual vs. psychological, therefore real, is this Noumenal Self underlying whatever
goes on in our Psychological Self.
Sciences and even other branches of philosophy do not make the abovementioned distinction
between two dimensions of the self. For them there is just one self- the doer and one is what one
does. Here, Metaphysics would argue that we exist even in our sleep where we are not the doer
etc. but we still cannot deny our own reality. Don’t we frequently refer to an ‘I’ that has
experienced all stages of growth from childhood to adulthood to old age, but still somehow has
itself remained the same? We do. So, this ‘I’ is the reality that remains the same through all
change and variety. Knowing it is the truest knowledge and metaphysics aims at this, thereby
making it a study that aims at knowing what exists beyond the perceivable plurality. Now we
also realise that within this world there are generalities that are abstract, like ‘humanity’ in all
human beings or goodness in all good actions. These, in themselves are not perceivable yet they
are held to be present in all their instances. Plato called these Concepts or Ideas, and defined
them as the unchanging, common essences of things that are fixed in things like their Patterns
(The Theaetetus). Plato’s metaphysics reflected faith in the undeniability of such Ideas and so
took these to be the object of true knowledge.

2.2 KINDS OF METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS

Now, the reason why we do metaphysics is due to the following three kinds of tendencies that
impel us to ask the following three kinds of questions.
Our cognition, which is the sum total of all our intellectual tendencies seeking knowledge asks is
there a reality which is undeniable and if there is one, then how can we know it? All answers to
the first question form Philosophical Ontology which Metaphysics is deeply interested in and the
second kind of questions, again raised by our cognition, is ‘how can we know the reality?
Answers to this come under Epistemology, which also tells us that the valid method of knowing
reality also depends upon what we hold to be real. If, as is the common practice, we hold reality
to be physical, then our method of knowing it will be Observation and Induction, collectively
called by Plato the Empirico-Inductive method. Recommending this method is the
epistemological position known as Empiricism which is the view that knowledge comes to us
primarily through sense perception. And if we, along with the Idealistic position hold that it is
not the object, but the Idea that is real, then we choose the Rationalistic theory of knowledge.
Rationalism is the view that knowledge comes to us primarily through mind. Knowledge

16
acquired through both sense and mind stands in need of Verification which is the process of
comparing knowledge with the fact known. Here, the sign of the truth of knowledge is
Correspondence between the object and its knowledge and the way to check correspondence is
called verification. If the object known is an idea (abstract like a mathematical concept), then the
sign of truth is consistency or Coherence between the knowledge and its object.
As pure philosophy, metaphysics prefers rationalism to empiricism because it holds the object of
knowledge to be an idea as distinguished from its particular physical instantiation. Mathematics
which gets an intermediary position between sense perception and true knowledge also looks for
consistency. Yet, neither is needed by Idealism which holds the abstract Ideas (not even
mathematical) to be the real object of truest knowledge. Here the way to determine whether
knowledge is true or not, is that of Validation, i.e., verifying by becoming one with the object of
knowledge.
In addition to the ontological and epistemological questions we also are faced with questions
about the significance of what we know. These are Axiological Questions - about the value or
significance of objects of knowledge and answers to them are supposed to tell us why we should
try to know. Such questions are raised by our Affective part which is the sum total of our
feelings, sentiments, emotions, instincts and appetites. It is believed by some philosophical
schools that these, in themselves, are blind and need to be controlled by our Cognition. These
always seek pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction without being able to realise the subtle
distinction among them which is clarified by our cognition. Here the method pursued is that of
intuition or realisation. Intuitionism is thus the epistemological theory favoured by our affective
aspect and since intuition has no rationality- the only way to determine the authenticity of
knowledge given by it is validation, i.e., finding knowledge to be true by becoming one with its
object. Such knowledge is again threefold - of truth, beauty, and goodness as forming the
organic unity called the ‘Absolute’ in western metaphysics, and as saccidānanda or the organic
unity of sat ( truth), cit ( consciousness making voluntary actions seeking goodness) possible and
ānanda or bliss sought by our emotive part in Indian thought.
It is believed that our own nature impels us to do metaphysics as an attempt to know what is
undeniably real. This reality has to have truth, beauty and goodness only then can its knowledge
as its realisation satisfy us fully. These are realised through Intuition and are just validated in our
being identical with them. Other things like the physical world are also held to be real, but it is
perceived giving rise to the view that knowledge comes to us through sense perception, the view
17
known as Empiricism. Or else looking at physical sciences and Mathematics we hold Mind to be
the source of knowledge. This is Rationalism. Knowledge acquired by both needs verification to
prove its certainty. Metaphysics as the study of being tends to refute both as they deal with what
is held to be changeable and therefore unreal. Knowledge acquired in one moment will be untrue
the next moment because its object has changed and change is necessary according to the
Ancient Greek cosmologist, Heraclitus and the physical sciences too.
Our cognition searches for truth thereby making metaphysics ask ‘what is Reality? How can we
know it? The Commonest Answer here is that the physical world is real. This is the ontological
position known as Materialism. It also rightly holds that we know this reality through sense
perception. This is the epistemological position called Empiricism. Empiricism depends on
Induction and Inference in order to arrive at a general truth from observing many instances of
the same kind. Example is ‘Abida is a woman and she is mortal’; ‘Sarla is a woman and she is
mortal’; so ‘woman is mortal’. Similarly, the physical object - a cup is made of matter and exists
in space and time; so, all physical things existing in space and time are material but ‘matter’
itself is inexhaustible by any number of its instances. It thus transcends change and diversity and
is identical and unmoved. So, it is a concept, examples of which there are numerous. Similarly,
there are other concepts which do not appear in what is perceivable but in what we experience
otherwise. For example, we experience a good deed, a true statement and a beautiful object.
Goodness, Truth and Beauty are thus three values which being abstract are different from what
we can see but yet we know them to be real. Having faith in the reality of concepts is
Conceptualism or Idealism because these concepts are very much like an “Idea”—abstract,
general and yet universally one. This is the Ontological position known as Idealism and for it,
the source of knowledge is Mind. This is the Rationalistic theory of knowledge and uses
Deduction which is the knowing process which begins with one indubitable truth, and deduces,
not infers, from it without the help of sense perception, other equally certain truth(s). This kind
of sceptical rationalism was adopted by Descartes, when he found that the only truth he cannot
deny or doubt is the fact of his own thinking (one indubitable truth) and that since He Thinks
therefore, he certainly He Is/Exists (second indubitable truth) got through deduction.
2.3.1 Causation
Metaphysics studies basic generalities that are found in the physical universe too. Such
cosmological generalities are principles of motion-change, identity, space-time, and causality.
Early Greek philosophers dealt with these. Thales held flowing water as the essence of reality,
18
Pythagoras found number to be the universal feature. Heraclitus, (like Buddhism) held Change
to be the essence of things and finally Parmenides believed all change to be relative to what
doesn’t change and held the concept of Being to be the first principle of the universe. Since all
these principles cause the world, law of Causation is important. It is a simple thesis that the
world is the result or effect of what was existent in the past. Contemporary cosmology holds
causality and other such laws as determining the structure of the perceivable world. Of these,
Metaphysics just accepts the law of causation and insists that it is operating in the entire cosmos
showing that every object of sense perception or thinking is caused by something else that must
be prior to it in time yet close in space as well. In between cause and effect there should be
spatial and temporal proximity and then in the same order a sequence is to be repeated a number
of times to be called a causal sequence. For example, Fire and smoke are held to be each other’s
cause and effect because 1) wherever there is fire, there is smoke, 2) fire precedes smoke in
point of time, 3) two are close to each other in space and time and finally 4) they are repeated a
number of times in the same temporal order. Same features are found in the sequence of
nothingness and creation so they are each other’s cause and effect.
Human behaviour is also subject to this kind of causal necessity. We will to do something (the
cause), and actually do it (the effect). It is possible that we do not do the first willed act but in
such a situation, willing as the cause is followed by another effect, may be in the form of
frustration which we experience on not being able to carry out the originally willed action.
Causation thus has necessity.
Metaphysics as the study of being entails the view that merely existing in space and time is not
reality. Real is that which doesn’t ever end and so can never be denied. Spatial temporal things
come to an end. What remains then is (the concept of) nothingness which also ends when a new
thing gets created. So, they are not eternal though what causes them may be. The causal law is
thus the reality. Simply stated, it consists in the following four things:
1. Cause is temporally prior to Effect.
2. Cause and effect are close to each other in space and time
3. One set of the supposed cause and effect is to be tested in the same temporal order for a
number of times to be each other’s cause and effect like that of fire and smoke.
4. Thus, the law is undeniable and in nature, cosmological-ontological, necessary for the very
creation of what is existent in the sense of being perceivable. Since for Metaphysics sense-world
is the very first object that we get acquainted with, the causal law determining it is real too.
19
Check your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided in the end of the unit.
1. Define a concept. Explain with the help of examples.
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

2.4 ONTOLOGY
When we proceed beyond the reality of the senses to that of the mind, which can know what is
mental in nature, we reduce the sensible manifold to one abstract ‘idea’. In ontology therefore
metaphysics admits of the following three positions.
A) Materialism - This position propounds sense perception as the source of knowledge. Some
metaphysicians however reject the claim of sense perception to true knowledge. Their chief
argument here is that matter, having motion innate in it is bound to move and change and so
can’t be known in true sense of the word knowledge. The latter has got to be certain, permanent
and can be of a similar object. Matter is not permanent and unchanging, so matter is not the true
object of true knowledge. This conclusion seems to lose its force when we pay attention to the
fact that matter in itself is not an object but a concept for all material objects. As a concept, it is
abstract and permanent and so knowable. So are other concepts like humanity of which all
human beings are examples. Other concepts also are the real objects of true knowledge. This is
conceptualism. Other concept is idea so this logically leads us to idealism.
B- Idealism is the view that it is the Idea of ‘matter’ - and not matter itself, along with other
such Ideas, that is real because even in material objects what doesn’t change is their essence or
their identity as a MATERIAL object . For example, every human being whose body is made up
of matter keeps changing in body from childhood to the old age. Yet something in him remains
the same throughout. This is his identity as a human and this doesn’t change. So, there is
humanity-whatever it may mean. This distinctive essence common to all humans is their
‘rationality’, i.e., the power to think, which should and supposedly does control their irrational
impulses. Now humanity or rationality are equally abstract like an idea, they do not undergo
change and so are permanent. This, therefore, is the true object of true knowledge and thus the

20
only Reality. Faith in such abstract realities because of their all comprehensiveness has been
called Idealism or conceptualism and its followers are called idealists or conceptualists. The
ontological position known as Idealism is the view that Reality is of the nature of an idea—
abstract, imperceivable, yet knowable, and necessary. For them the perceivable Reality and its
knowledge alone is the highest knowledge.
C- Realism – Realising that both matter and mind are real and in knowledge they get
interrelated, the question arises as to how this relation is made possible to obtain knowledge. For
this we have to consider the Third ontological position which is Realism. Admitting along with
the common man that both matter and mind are equally necessary to explain all our knowledge,
and that the two are different from each other, needing something that could establish a relation
between the two, Realism provides this medium in the form of sensations that always arise when
our senses come into contact with the object. Realism makes it necessary to have a medium of
knowledge. Neo-Platonism (a philosophical school) says that this ‘sensible manifold ‘has to be
somewhat like the object to be known and on the other, like the mind which knows. Such that, it
is ‘both immanent in, and transcendent of the mind’. Plato thus establishes this relation, which is
necessary for sense-knowledge to be possible.
Now, since, sensations are needed only in case of sense perception which does not yield true
knowledge of the eternal, the realist’s emphasis on them, cannot claim to be an independent
ontological theory. It is just a necessary implication of Materialism. Same has been done by the
Vaiśeṣika school of Indian philosophy which holds all generalities that necessarily go into the
making of the many physical sense objects to be concepts that are the true object of even sense
perception. These necessary factors are the concepts of matter (dravya), quality (guṇa), number
(saṁkhyā), Relation like those of conjunction (saṁyoga) and inherence (samavāya) between the
material object and its qualities (essential or incidental). To explain, relation between a material
object and its capacity to make movement (which is innate in matter) is of inherence, and
therefore necessary. Physical-material objects cannot but move. But between the same object
and its colour, relation is one of conjunction because the object can have any colour yet no
change comes in its Basic nature or in its identity. This explanation by the Vaiśeṣika school is
similar to neo-Platonism. The latter admits the necessity of more than two factors, it is pluralistic
as against the monism of both idealism and Materialism.

2.5 EPISTEMOLOGY

21
Once we have admitted the fact of knowing reality, an obvious question that arises is ‘how do we
know the real? So here metaphysics acknowledges many sources of knowledge like sense
perception as in Empiricism, mind as in Rationalism, intuition used specifically by philosophy
and of identification or Realisation, distinctive metaphysics. All these may be distinguished in
accordance with the differences in extent of the distinction between the knower and the known.
In intuition or in realisation, there is no distinction between knower and known, it is claimed that
intuition is the highest method of knowing. But it should be noted that not all of them yield the
same kind of knowledge. The former reveal to us what Plato calls ‘shadows’. Plato has
explained the nature of the process of acquiring true knowledge through an allegory, known as
the ‘allegory of the cave.’ Here Plato says that we, the ordinary human beings are like prisoners
in a dark cave and our hands and feet are tied with heavy iron chains. The floor of the cave has a
slope towards its wall and outside the cave there is light and high floor. On this high floor,
figures are moving from right to left and left to right and casting their shadows on the wall of the
cave. Behind the prisoner’s back is burning a big fire which is symbolic of various difficulties
that we, the prisoners of our senses have to face and then overcome if we want to enter the realm
of light and knowledge. We, seeing the shadows cast by the moving figures outside become
curious to know them, so occasionally, with great difficulty we sometimes succeed in looking
back and see the light outside. This attracts us and we try harder and harder to go up to the level
of light and sometimes succeed too, though in doing so we have to face many difficulties (fire).
Finally on persistent effort we do succeed and reach the flame of light or knowledge and in
doing so reach the higher level of existence too because the lighted floor of figures (Ideas) is
rising towards the mouth of the cave and outside it is the highest. So, for Plato, knowledge is the
path to become better and better ontologically. He holds the realm of sense perception to be that
of opinion which keeps on changing and doesn’t raise the qualitative level of the knower. But
when he starts looking at the Ideas behind their perceptible examples, (for example, humanity
behind the perceivable human being) he has risen to the level of the unchanging, universal
therefore the real essence. In between the realm of sense perception and that of the Ideas, lies the
knowledge of mathematical ideas and the process of true knowledge becomes stronger with
gaining the knowledge of mathematical Ideas as they too are abstract. Yet they, in spite of being
certain, are not the highest objects of knowledge, because it’s not necessary that a mathematician
would also be a good person simply because mathematics definitely teaches us to deal with the
abstract but it teaches us nothing about the values of truth beauty and goodness. So, a
22
mathematician may be an extremely intelligent person but may not be necessarily desirable if
not a good individual. What ensures a moral rising of an individual is the pursuit of values
because values can truly be known only by being realised. One knows fully what goodness is by
becoming good himself. So, for some metaphysicians the truest method of obtaining truest
knowledge is that of becoming one with the unchanging concepts of values. It is the method of
realisation. In this order, methods that reduce the distinction between the knower and the known
come at a higher level and which don’t are placed lower. It is like knowing goodness by
becoming good. In Indian metaphysics the method of neti neti (negative persistence), i.e.
distinguishing the ultimate reality from whatever it is not, has also been recommended for
various reason. One reason is that since the ultimate object of truest knowledge is not like any
other thing and since knowing it directly comes very rarely in a few selected cases which are this
of enlightenment, the common man is satisfied by just knowing that the ultimate or the Absolute
is different from every other relative and incomplete object that may have existence in space and
time. Still the reality of the physical world is instrumental in the sense of attaining highest
knowledge, but it is to be transcended. Methods of attaining this knowledge have also been
accepted but only as the initial stages of the knowing process. These include induction or
inference from many sense perceptions of the same kind, and deduction from one indubitable
like Descartes’ methodical doubt, the Socratic intuition, or the phenomenological method where
each successive step raises the qualitative level of the knower.
Some Metaphysicians acknowledge the mathematical method because it gives us an
understanding of mathematical concepts that are like other concepts. Mathematics deals with
numbers which are necessary for every existent. Yet this existent is not the same as its number.
Just like the value of goodness, the exact same number can characterise many objects at the
same time. Being a concept, each number is also universal. Metaphysicians realise this and
utilize this; Descartes for his methodical doubt, and Spinoza for demonstrating his proofs for
Ethics where he insists that ideas follow one another in a causal order. This method has accuracy
and undeniability but as Socrates would say, it fails to bring about some necessarily desired
changes in the knower. The Socratic dictum ‘virtue is knowledge’ means that a truly
knowledgeable person cannot but be virtuous. This is so because true knowledge is that of
values and virtues. Knowing concepts of physical qualities is understanding that can change with
time. But virtue once realised doesn’t change and makes the knower virtuous forever. Indian
Vaiśeṣika system also identifies concepts, physical qualities, etc. as the object of knowledge but
23
not of realisation. For them, it is better to know concepts of number, substance, quality and
relations of conjunction and inherence as they are universally needed. These are abstract and
eternal but objects of only scientific study or cosmology because they qualify their subject
matter, i.e., the physical world. Metaphysics studies things or ideas existing beyond the physical
so it begins with the method of Methodological scepticism or methodic doubt.
Doubting step by step is another method of metaphysics warranted by the revelation of an object
getting destroyed after sometime and thus changing from something into nothing during the
course of time. When present we hold it to be real but when it gets destroyed, it is unreal so we
are in a dilemma like ‘Is it real or unreal? ‘so we start doubting whatever we perceive through
our senses. This is methodic doubt and its first traces can be found in the metaphysics of
Descartes. Seeing every presence changing into absence after sometime, Descartes start by
doubting everything and final arrives at something that cannot be doubted further. It is the fact
that he himself is doubting or thinking. This fact has been given the name ‘cogito’ and from this
indubitable truth Descartes derives ‘therefore I am’. In thus passing from the cogito to his own
existence (and not others) he, at no stage takes any help from sense perception. His method of
doubt is thus A-priori or independent of sense perception. When we arrive at a concept or idea of
colour or goodness, we use the A-Posteriori method of induction or that of arriving at the
common or general concept from our sense perception of a number of objects / actions. Sense
perception here helps in discovering the general behind many particulars of the same type. This
method aims at arriving at a general idea of colour or goodness from observing the fact that
some or the other colour is present in every object or that every action has got to be either good
or not good.
The Geometrical method is used in metaphysics as well, for instance this style of proof or
demonstration is used in Euclid’s proofs in geometry and later was also used by Spinoza in
philosophy while deriving his proofs in the Ethics. Using this method gives rise to the
philosophy of mathematics that studies the assumptions, foundations, and implications of
mathematics. It aims to understand the nature and method of mathematics and find out the place
of mathematics in people’s life. This also finds support from the Nyāya Vaiśeṣika theory of
‘Categories (padārtha) which includes the concept of number or Saṁkhyā.
The Phenomenological Method includes analysing all stages of the knowing process, and
therefore seems to be quite appealing. As it has to consider all that takes place in the knowing
process, it begins by referring to our freedom of the will because of which we choose the aim of
24
getting true knowledge. Freedom of the will here plays an important part. Animals do not have it
so they cannot will to know or to even satisfy or suppress their hunger. Their behaviour is
instinct driven. But man’s attempt to know is willed activity and man is free to choose it or not
to choose it. But once chosen, man is bound to at least try to accomplish it. So free willing and
then choosing and then trying to accomplish the willed act - all this forms part of the
phenomenological method.

2.6 AXIOLOGY
Third kind of questions that metaphysics tries to answer are correlated with Axiology or the
theory of values. These questions tend to include the following:
Does reality (perceivable or imperceivable) have any value of any kind? what is its significance?
if it is valuable, then which kind of value does it hold? Does it encompass the value of truth and
undeniability? or beauty that pleases us? or goodness which gets our unconditional approval?
Furthermore, is this value intrinsic or extrinsic? i.e., to say ‘are they important in themselves’?
or is it just as a means to some other goal, and therefore extrinsic or just as an instrument whose
use is to create something with it? In our daily life we come across both. Physical objects that
are beautiful have extrinsic worth as they lead us to the idea of beauty but still fail to enable us
to realise it. Similarly, all true statements give us a hint of what truth should be like, i.e.,
undeniability but do not make us truthful. This is because all these extrinsic goods are bound by
spatial and temporal limits and also by attitudes that we might have at the time of experiencing
them. Individual good actions give us a hint of what goodness is like but don’t make us the same
as goodness, they do not make us good. Similarly, we get a hint of truth in all true statements but
then also realise that it may not be advisable to speak the truth in many situations, like when
someone is critically ill telling him the truth of their condition may cause deterioration in his
health that might be fatal. Here it is advisable to tell a lie like ‘you are improving and soon you
will be fine’. This will strengthen, what Gabriel Marcel calls ontological hope. This means that
this lie which is being told despite the total absence of technological hope for the Doctors have
given up but his near and dear ones haven’t, may give him the strength, if only for a short while,
to pull through the hopeless condition that he is in. But at the same time telling him the truth
about his condition may speed up the final result of his succumbing to his malady. This shows
that even pursuit of the values of truth and beauty are subject to circumstances, but the same is
never the case with goodness, which therefore appears as the highest value in the hierarchy of

25
values. We never can say ‘not being good is good’; but it can surely be bad to be truthful in
situations like the one mentioned above and also pursuing beauty when sensibility of the
experiencer is not refined enough may be ‘not good’. So as far as values are concerned, they are
extrinsic and intrinsic, pursued respectively in the initial and later stage of knowing the ultimate
Reality of metaphysics. Goodness is always totally intrinsic whereas other two can be both
extrinsic and intrinsic depending upon the attitude they are being pursued with. For us, tortured
by severe heat of the sun, rain clouds are beautiful and pleasant, but for a farmer whose crop is
ready to be harvested, rain clouds are not welcome as rain may wash out all his yield. So even
beauty, like truth, can be possessed of just instrumental worth. The point to be noted is that these
values whether intrinsic (as in case of goodness) or extrinsic (as Beauty in a beautiful object or
as truth of a true statement) necessarily characterise all objects, actions and experiences and
therefore become an important subject as well as a presupposition of Metaphysics. It is only
because of this axiological postulate that metaphysics differs from the whole of philosophy.
Otherwise, it is just the same as the latter or is its purest kind.
Check your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided in the end of the unit.
1. Define a concept. Explain with the help of examples.
1. What, for Metaphysics, are the different ontological, epistemological and axiological
positions? Explain each briefly.
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

2.7 LET US SUM UP

To sum up, we have seen in the course of this unit that the fundamental concepts which concern
metaphysics include the questions of Ontology, Causation, Epistemology and Axiology.
Consistently with its Idealism, Metaphysics initially recommends rationalism as its
epistemological theory but later for the knowledge of still more abstract, thus higher than that of
matter, ideas like those of values of truth, goodness and beauty Goodness and beauty that can be
known only by being experienced, it, as in Indian philosophy, opts for the method of realisation

26
which is to know something by becoming one with it. Metaphysical methods to acquire
knowledge of the Absolute Reality are the a posteriori method of induction used by the common
man in the initial stages of acquiring knowledge or a-priori method of dedution beginning with
some undeniable, a priori truth like ‘I think’ of Descartes. conceptual analysis as that of truth in
logic, intellectual persistence - negative like that of the advaita vedāntin where we go on denying
every familiar objects claim to ultimate reality by says ‘not this, not that’ or neti- neti and
positive like Plato’s search for the enlightened realm of Ideas as in his Allegory Of The Cave.
This requires existential rising or improving our whole being to the level of becoming identical
with the three ultimate values of truth, beauty and goodness.

2.8 KEY WORDS

Axiology : Theory/study of values.
Epistemology : Theory of knowledge.
Ontology : Study of the nature of being.

2.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Bergson, Henry. An Introduction to Metaphysics.Translated by T. E. Hulme. Indianpolis and
Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Rea, Michael. Metaphysics: The Basics. UK: Routledge, 2014.
Sinha, Jadunath. A Manuel of Metaphysics. Delhi: New Central Book agency, 2016.
Online resource:
Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on “Metaphysics”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

2.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1. Concept is the unchanging, common abstract, essence of things and it is fixed like patterns in
them. Being eternal and unchanging it is the truest object of true knowledge. For example,
‘humanity’ is a concept necessarily found in all human beings but in itself is not the same as
them, however great their number may be. ‘Matter’ is also a concept, found in all, material
objects yet different from them and so open to participation by other material objects however
and whenever they may come.

27
Check Your Progress II
1. We ask three kinds of questions about what we hold to be real in the sense of being
undeniable. What is the reality is an ontological question that, in response, gives many theories
of Reality - materialism, idealism and Realism - all ontological concepts.
Second kind of question is how can we know this Reality? If we say through the mind we are
following rationalism. If our answer is ‘through sense perception’ we are doing empiricism
which uses the empirico- inductive method. If we say we know through deduction we are being
rationalists using the method of mathematical or systematic doubt and if we say that we know
Reality by becoming one with it, then our method is intuitionism. So, Rationalism, empiricism,
deduction, and induction based on observation, and finally intuitionism are all epistemological
concepts.
Then there are axiological concepts of truth, beauty and goodness. These are called values and
they qualify a statement, an object, or an action respectively. Collectively they are supposed to
be forming the ultimate Reality.

28
UNIT 3 METHODS*
Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Speculative Method
3.3 Dialectical Method
3.4 Retortive Method
3.5 Induction
3.6 Deduction
3.7 Analysis
3.8 Synthesis
3.9 Reflection
3.10 Intuition
3.11 Indian Methods: A Brief Sketch
3.12 Let Us Sum Up
3.13 Key Words
3.14 Further Readings and References
3.15 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES
Just as the notion of being underlines, penetrates and goes beyond all other notions similarly
metaphysics is the branch of human knowledge that underlines, penetrates, transforms, and
unifies all other branches. It is very important to look at different methods used in this branch of
philosophy. Some of these methods are common to those used in other branches of knowledge.
The objectives of this unit are,
• to study of some of the important methods used in western tradition of metaphysics,
• to study some methods used in Indian tradition of metaphysics.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

*
Dr. Gigi Purayidathil, Institute of Philosophy and Religion, Aluva.
29
The term ‘method’ is derived from the Greek ‘methodos’ (road to). Hence, etymologically
the term refers to the way of doing something, the system of procedure to obtain or reach the end
intended. It is the way of procedure from the known to the unknown, from a given starting
point to final propositions in a determined field of knowledge. In speculative sciences it
indicates the road to propositions concerning that which exists or is thought to exist; whereas in
normative sciences it indicates the road to the norms governing the doing of something. In the
sciences, the use of correct methods is most important in order to make certain that the
conclusions are correctly connected with the starting point and the foundation. Every
scientific method is the road from the known starting point to a result which in one or the other
manner is linked to this starting point. This connection can be established through logical
reasoning or deduction, or through induction, synthesis, or analysis. The characteristic feature of
the discipline of philosophy is the existence of different methods in it. When there was no
distinction between science and philosophy and all knowledge was philosophy, it was thought
that the task of philosophy was to give a complete and coherent account of the universe as a
whole. This view originated in ancient Greece and lasted for several centuries in the West until
alternatives to it were developed. A method is a set of directives that serve to guide the process
towards a result. Metaphysical claims can vary in their model status: some are contingent truths
while others are necessary truths. One would expect that quite different methods must be
employed in these different cases. In fact, the variety is considerably greater than what it
appears.
The metaphysical methods are not exclusively employed by philosophers. Every human at some
time or other utilizes metaphysical methods in one’s thinking on philosophical problems.
However, these methods are mainly utilized by the philosophers. Secondly, the metaphysical
methods are not absolutely different from scientific methods. In fact they have much in common
with scientific methods. We can very well say that in solving its problems concerning sciences,
the metaphysicians utilize the same methods of induction and deduction as used in sciences.
Thus, in order to understand the philosophical and the metaphysical methods these two
methods must be discussed. The present Unit includes brief overviews of a few of the prominent
Western and Indian metaphysical methods.

3.2 SPECULATIVE METHOD

30
The intellectual development reached its climax in Athens as various streams of Greek thought
converged there during the fifth century B.C. The age of Pericles saw Athens at the peakof its
cultural creativity and political influence. The development of democracy and technical
advances in agriculture and navigation encouraged humanistic spirit and speculative method.
Pre-socratic philosophers had been relatively isolated in their speculations. Now in Athens such
philosophical speculation became more representative of the city’s intellectual life as a whole,
which continued to move towards conceptual thought, critical analysis, reflection, and dialectic.

3.3 DIALECTIC METHOD

Dialectic method of Socrates and Plato was essentially a method of discussion and debate in
which the participants progressed from one point to another, each one disputing the point of the
other until they could reach an undisputable point. It consisted in reasoning through rigorous
dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation intended to expose false beliefs and elicit truth.
The strategy was to take up a sequence of questions with whomever one was in discussion,
relentlessly analyzing one by one the implications of the answers in such a way as to bring
out the flaws and inconsistencies inherent in a given belief or statement. Attempts to define the
essence of something were rejected one after another as being either too wide or too
narrow. Often such an analysis ended in complete perplexity. Yet such times it was clear that
philosophy was concerned less with knowing the right answers than with the strenuous attempt
to discover those answers. To practice philosophy in the dialectic method was continually to
subject one’s thoughts to the criticism of reason in earnest dialogue with others. Genuine
knowledge was not something that could simply be received from another, but was rather a
personal achievement, won only at the cost of constant intellectual struggle and self-critical
reflection. Dialectic takes a different turn in Hegel. Hegelian dialectic is not merely
epistemological, but ontological too. The method of dialectic involves thesis-antithesis-
synthesis in which thesis, antithesis and synthesis are only different ‘moments’ in the
movement of thought resulting in both continuity and difference. The very birth of the thesis is
the birth of the antithesis as well as the synthesis. The thesis carries the seeds of the antithesis
within itself and the two together carry in them the seeds of synthesis. Dialectic is not a
onetime movement. It does not stop once a synthesis is reached out of a thesis and an antithesis.
It moves on to a higher level in the next stage to a new moment when the synthesis of the
previous level itself becomes the new thesis which generates its antithesis and from which yet

31
another synthesis emerges. In this new synthesis, something of the previous synthesis remains,
but with something from its antithesis added on. This novel synthesis again becomes the thesis
for the next level of dialectical movement and it goes on like this.

3.4 RETORTIVE METHOD

Towards the end of the patristic period, St Augustine tried to answer the problem of
certainty with his method of retortion. He held that the skeptics are mistaken in assuming that
certainty of knowledge is impossible and that human can achieve only “probable knowledge”
i.e., ideas whose validity is highly probable. Since any degree of probable knowledge implies an
approach towards completely certain knowledge, the assumption of probably valid truths
presupposes the existence and attainability of absolute truths. If the skeptic argues that no real
objects of his sensory experience exist, nevertheless he cannot doubt the fact that his
perception does exist. The person who doubts all truths is caught in a logical dilemma, for one
must exist in order to doubt; in fact, no matter what else one doubts, one proves one’s own
existence through the act of doubting. Nor is it of any use to suggest that one might err in
thinking that one exists, for ‘even if one errs, one exists’ (Si fallor, sum).

3.5 INDUCTION
The principles of different sciences are arrived at by means of inductive process. For example in
psychiatry some general principles concerning mental disease are discovered by observation
of the behavior of mental patients, its recording, its analysis, classification and finally
generalization to arrive at certain common principles. This is the method of induction. It is
surely very true that many important metaphysical propositions concerning contingent
matters of fact are such that they cannot be known in non-inferential way: they must be justified
on the basis of other justified beliefs. Consider, for example, the thesis that humans have
immaterial immortal souls, or the thesis that the mind is identical with the brain, or the thesis
that the theoretical entities postulated by physics are real. How do metaphysicians proceed in
such cases? It is hard to see any alternative to the inductive methods employed within science
where one employs such notions as hypothetico-deductive method, crucial experiments, and
inference to the best explanation.

3.6 DEDUCTION
Deduction is the process of reasoning from a known principle to an unknown. Deduction can

32
be of two types, Logical Deduction and Transcendental Deduction.
3.6.1 Logical Deduction
Logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or several logical content to its or
theirlogical implications.
3.6.2 Transcendental Deduction
Transcendental deduction is the process of justifications of the necessity of some conditions of a
fact. Metaphysics, like other sciences, will use logical deduction when it will group premises to
come to further conclusions. But it will use transcendental deduction to show the necessity of
certain conclusions. In the measure in which the facts to be explained will be necessary, in that
measure their conditions will also be necessary.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Explain briefly Dialectic Method.

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) What do you understand by Induction?
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
3.7 ANALYSIS
Analysis is the discovery of the parts of the whole. One fundamental method for establishing
metaphysical truths that are necessary is by showing that they are analytically true statements,
where this is a matter of showing that they follow from logical truths in the narrow sense via
substitution in accordance with relevant definitions. But how are the definitions to be assessed?
Here there are at least two fundamental criteria: one positive and one negative. As regards the
negative criterion, a definition must not be exposed to counter examples, so a very important
task in evaluating a definition is to see whether it is possible to construct counter examples to the
definition. If it appears to satisfy this negative criterion, then the next question is whether the
definition enables one to derive what seem to be the fundamental necessary truths involving the
concept in question. Analysis can of different types.

33
3.7.1 Logical Analysis
Logical analysis is the discovery of the parts of an explicit content of knowledge, e.g., analysis
ofa concept.
3.7.2 Transcendental Analysis
Transcendental analysis is the discovery of the a-priori necessary conditions of a given
experience. Transcendental means ‘going beyond’ and thus ‘transcending’ the particularities of
the objects of the experience to concentrate on the experience itself and on its conditions).
3.7.3 Analytical Judgments
Analytical judgments are those which express what the analysis has revealed. If the analysis was
true then to deny these judgments means to introduce a contradiction. Analytical judgments can
be divided again into two types; Analytical judgments in the strict sense and Analytical
judgments in the broad sense.
3.7.3.1 Analytical Judgments in the Strict Sense
Analytical judgments in the strict sense are those which express what the logical analysis has
revealed. Those who deny such true judgments put a contradiction between terms of contents of
judgments.
3.7.3.2 Analytical Judgments in the Broad Sense
Analytical judgments in the broad sense are those which express what the transcendental
analysis has revealed. Those who would deny such true judgments formed on the basis of the
analysis of the experience of judgments itself would put contradiction between the terms and the
exercise of the denial. Metaphysics, as the other sciences, will of course use logical analysis in
the frequent definitionsof its terms. But its proper method will be the ‘transcendental analyses’.
It will try to discover the a priori conditions of its starting point, i.e. our sensitive-rational
experience. Thus it will discover the nature of the agent, the structure of the primary object of
the knowledge, the existence and the nature of the agent’s ultimate end.

3.8 SYNTHESIS
Synthesis is the putting together of parts to compose or re–compose a whole. Metaphysics will
use synthesis, first in so far as it rests on the direct judgments, which imply several syntheses
and the exercise of the first principles. Metaphysics will further aim at synthesis in as far as it
will try to synthetize all its discoveries and put them into complex conclusions, theses, sections
and parts so as to form a complete treatise of metaphysics. It can be of two types; a posteriori
34
synthesis and a priori synthesis.
a) A Posteriori Synthesis
A posteriori synthesis is the putting together of parts, which have been the objects of particular
experience.
b) A Priori Synthesis
A priori synthesis is that union of parts, which is always taking place in a certain
experience, thus the data of that experience may vary, e.g. the direct judgments implies
always a concrete and objective synthesis.
3.8.1 Synthetic Judgments
Synthetic judgments are those which express what experience reveals to be. There will be
definitions in metaphysics and they will fulfill the quite legitimate purpose of explication. But it
is true that in metaphysics we want to do more than define essences. We want information about
reality and judgments of existence. These will be grounded on experiences. When judgments
bear on the phenomenal as phenomenal, then the judgments are synthetic a posteriori. When the
experience and reflections on it manifest principles which are spontaneously operative in
experience (as the principle of identity and principle of causality) then we have here a basis for
what are called synthetic a priori judgments and with the help of these we are able or may
evenbe forced to affirm realities, which either belong to the material world or transcend it.
3.8.1.1 Synthetic A Posteriori Judgments
Synthetic a posteriori judgments are those which express the unity of the particular data of
experience, e.g. the judgment that “the thief is in the room” (those who deny them go against the
contingent truth, but actually something else might be the case, and then the denial would not be
false).
3.8.1.2 Synthetic A Priori Judgments
Synthetic a priori judgments are those which express the putting together (the synthesis), which
experiences always imply. E.g. “The first principle of objectivity” is a synthesis, always implied
in all judgments. The first principle of objectivity that “there is truth” is spontaneous primary
evidence, which we recognize by reflecting on what we find within us; it is even a conviction
which one cannot reject without restating it. St. Thomas has well expressed this when he
writes: “it is self-evident that truth exists, for even denying it would admit it. Were there no
such thing as truth, then it would be true that there is no truth; something then is true, and
therefore there is truth.” In fact those who deny them go against a necessary truth and thus
35
they always commit a contradiction.

3.9 REFLECTION
Metaphysics uses reflection as it’s a way to explore reality. Metaphysics will use reflections
both in the sense of concomitant reflections on our direct judgments and other sensitive-
relational experiences and of subsequent reflections on the implications of such acts. The
concomitant reflection supplies the very first ground of certainty because we have here the
most intimate unity of intelligibility of thing and understanding. The subsequent reflections will
use analyses, synthesis and deduction. These exist in different forms and manners. We have
explained it in detail in the above section.

3.10 INTUITION
Another important method that philosophers employ in attempting to arrive at necessary truths is
that of appealing to intuitions. Where a metaphysical truth, if necessary, appears to be an
analytic truth, the appeal to intuition would not seem to be a satisfactory terminus since it
provides no account of why the proposition seems to be necessarily true, whereas an analytic
derivation does precisely that. However, many philosophers hold that there are a priori
necessary truths that are not analytic. So, for example, there are propositions concerning
apparently simple, incompatible properties, such as the propositions that nothing can be both
red and green at the same place at the same time. In addition, if ethical statements have
cognitive content, then it is natural to think that there are basic moral statements that would be
true in any possible world and thus which are necessary such as the proposition that pain is
intrinsically bad and the proposition that the killing of innocent persons is seriously wrong. But
if this is right, then, if it can plausibly be argued that such propositions are analytically true,
there may be no alternative to the view that the truth of such propositions is known by means of
some sort of direct, intellectual intuition, however uninformative such an account may seem.

3.11 INDIAN METHODS: A BRIEF SKETCH

Many western scholars are of the view that Indian methods are always mystical. Although it is
partially true, along with the mystical experiences the knowledge of the ultimate can be deduced
through sound epistemological methods. Reality belongs to a level which cannot be attained by
sense experience and by generalizations from sense perception. Thus, in the Brahdaranyaka
Upaniṣad, Yājñavalkya in his discussion with the priests, shows how one has to proceed from

36
the crude material earth, through the elements of water, air and fire in the increasing order of
subtlety to the general notion of being: “he who dwells in all beings, and within all beings
are, and who rules all beings from within, he is the self, the ruler within, the immortal.” (Brh.
Up.,III, VII, 15.).
But beyond this general aspect of material being (ādhibhūta) are the levels of consciousness: one
has to go up others, the internal sense of mind, and knowledge, to the inner most core of our
conscious self, which is the pure aspect of witness. “Hence ultimate reality has to be conceived
as unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, seer he… but there is no other knower
but he. This is thy self, the ruler within, the immortal.”(Brh. III, VII, 23.). Thus the search for
reality ends in the pure conscious self, which is the purest and subtlest core of all things.
The same method of procedure appears in other Upanishads also. Kena Upaniṣad begins
with the word “kena,” ( by whom) : “impelled by whom, at whose will does the mind move,
does the vital airs act, by whose movement does the speech speak, the eye and the ear and their
presiding deities attain their objects?” the answer is that the ear of the ear, the mind of the
mind, the speech of speech and the eye of the eye is the Real beyond, who is indicated by the
key word of the Upaniṣad, “Tadvanam,” namely the goal and object of all aspirations. He is
so subtle thatnone of the human faculties can grasp him.
A parable makes the matter clear: once the gods were standing together and bragging about their
feats in a victory they gained against the demons. Suddenly an unknown deity appears in the
vicinity. God Agni, fire, is deputed to find out his identity. As a contention for answering his
question the stranger challenged Agni to prove his power by burning a strew he put forth; Agni
failed and is turned back. Then the god of the air, Vāyu, approached and is turned back since he
failed to blow the straw off. Finally, Indra, the god of the sky, approached the stranger. Then
suddenly the deity vanished. Uma, the goddess of divine wisdom, appearing in mid-air told him
that it was Brahman, the supreme, who appeared to them, and that only through him they had
achieved the victory. The lesson of the parables is that action, represented by fire, and sense
experience symbolized by the god of air, cannot in any way attain ultimate reality even the
intellect, symbolized by the god of the sky, Indra, cannot directly attain reality, unless it is
manifested by divine wisdom in midair, i.e., in the cave of the heart, by a sort of intuition.
The reality is so subtle and so beyond all sense and imagination that those who think they
knowit, do not know it, while those who think they do not know it may very well have attained a
real knowledge of it. But the mode of procedure is clear: go beyond the senses to ultimate and
37
immutable reality, that is, the basis of all intelligibility and consciousness.
Indian philosophers also accept six means of knowledge (pramāṇas): perception, inference,
verbal testimony, comparison, presumption, and non-cognition. Pratyakṣa (perception) is sense
perception including mental perception. Perception may be determinate or indeterminate,
ordinary or extraordinary, or yogic. This is a method universally accepted by all schools of
Indian philosophy, but with their own individually prescribed interpretations. Anumāna
(inference) is necessarily linked with a universal relation and its recognition. The universal
relation must have been cognized on aprevious occasion, and must be re-cognized for inferential
knowledge to occur. It is a process of reasoning by which we are led to what is not given in
perception, but is always based on what is given in perception. This inference may be for
oneself (svārthānumāna) as in the case of a person non-verbally inferring within oneself the
presence of fire on the hill upon observing smoke there; or, it may be for another person
(parārthānumāna), expressed in language, as when one argues to prove that there must be fire
on the hill because smoke is observed. Śabda (verbal testimony) is a means of valid knowledge
that enjoys a special kind of centrality in many schools. If a person has known things as they
really are, his/her testimony should be accepted as a legitimate source of knowledge until we
ourselves are able to attain direct knowledge of things. In several fields of knowledge, we accept
the testimony of others even without questioning the truth of such testimony. Upamāna
(comparison) yields knowledge derived from judgments of similarity. A remembered object is
like a perceived one. “y is like x,” where x is immediately perceived and y is an object perceived
on a previous occasion that becomes the content of consciousness in the form of memory. For
example, if someone has never seen a wild cow but has been told by others that it looks like a
domestic cow, he will know that it is a wild cow when he, later on, sees a wild cow in the
forest. Arthāpatti (postulation or presumption) is knowledge obtained through postulating a fact
in order to make another fact intelligible. For instance, a man fasts during the day, but continues
to gain weight. Then one must assume, barring physiological problems that he eats at night.
Anupalabdhi (non-cognition) is the only means of the cognition of non-existence. It yields
knowledge of absence where an object would be immediately perceived if it were there.
However, not every instance of the non-cognition of something proves its non-existence. For
example, the failure of a person to see a chair in a dark room (i.e., non- apprehension by the
person) by no means indicates that the chair is not there. Hence, for non- apprehension to be a
sign of absence, the attempt at apprehension must be under appropriate conditions, which are
38
conditions sufficient to perception.
These six ways of knowing have played a very important role in the development of Indian
philosophy. For example, if certain forms of verbal testimony like the Vedas were not to be
allowed as sources of correct knowledge, the entire system of Vedanta would have been
impossible. Besides, pramāṇas assume significance because of the inseparable relation between
epistemology and metaphysics.

3.12 Methods of Metaphysics: A Historical Sketch

Traditionally, metaphysics was practiced as a top-down, a priori discipline with Euclidean
geometry as its model. The metaphysician begins with self-evident principle of a highly general
nature, together with appropriate definitions, and proceeds to draw out the necessary
consequences. This approach is clearly exemplified in the work of two prominent eighteenth –
century metaphysicians; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza. Leibniz
highlighted the i m p o r t a n c e o f principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. His
entire monadology (monad means a ‘unit’ or ‘one’) replete with an infinite collection of possible
worlds, with the actual world (the best of all possible worlds) consisting of a myriad of mutually
reflecting, simple mind like substances. Spinoza was even more self-consciously imitating
Euclid, but his conclusions are almost diametrically opposed to those of Leibniz. Spinoza’s
ontology comprises exactly one substance (God or Nature), of which the mental and the
physical realms are two aspects, and everything about the one substance is absolutely necessary
– only the actual is really possible.
In the course of the history, the discipline of metaphysics has been regularly contested.
Empiricists, led by David Hume, have often attacked a priori metaphysics, contrasting its
conflicting results with the astonishing success of empirical sciences, on the one hand, and of
mathematics on the other. At the end of 18th century, Immanuel Kant, in response to Hume’s
critique, attempted a partial vindication of a priori metaphysics. According to him
metaphysics can play a legitimate role as handmaid to science and a less straightforward role in
upholding ethics. In the late 19th century, the appetite for idealist metaphysics began to fade. A
realist assault on this tradition was launched by Alexius Meinong, Bertrand Russell, Gottlob
Frege, and George Moore, and their style of argumentation, as much as the content of their
conclusions, was influential in shaping the 20th centuries’ more circumspect approach to
metaphysics. Later, more scientifically minded thinkers, with the help of logical positivism and

39
inspired by the Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, declared all metaphysical discourses
completely meaningless. But the short-coming of the logical positivism was rapidly exposed
in the course of time. Now metaphysics cautiously revived by heirs of both movements is once
again a flourishing discipline in the early 21st century.
Contemporary metaphysics is characterized by a bottom-up approach rather than the traditional
top-down approach. The contemporary metaphysician begins with a problem or puzzle, often
generated by some basic data or the consequences of such data. To say that contemporary
metaphysics is bottom-up is not to saddle it with a crude inductivism – the fallacious inference
of general theories from finite data. The task of the contemporary metaphysician is not so much
to prove ontology, either from high-level first principle or from lower-level data. Rather it
aims to propose ontology to accommodate and explain the data, to resolve apparent conflicts by
explaining away the appearance, or explain why the data are misleading. The methodology is
less like that of pure mathematics and more like that of science. Given a finite amount of data,
the number of potentially adequate metaphysical theories seems limited only by the imagination
of practicing metaphysicians. To decide between theories we need more than data
accommodation. Metaphysicians typically subscribe to Occam’s razor – the injunction to refrain
from multiplying entities beyond necessity. The upshot of these principles is then, that a theory
must explain the data; and, of two theories that both explain the data, the theory with fewer
ontic commitments is to be preferred.

3.13 LET US SUM UP

Metaphysics starts from experience, rests on experience and uses the reflection which
accompanies it. Though metaphysics uses logical analysis, logical deduction and advances to
logical syntheses, its ‘speciality’ is in the use of the transcendental analysis and transcendental
deduction. It will thus come to the transcendental conclusions or synthesis. These will not
simply be laws which explain particular types of facts, but the expression of the actual real
conditions of the necessary experience of being, as we have it in our sensitive-rational
experience. Thus, the synthesis will speak of real causes, of their nature, of their structure, of
their relations.
Metaphysics will then be intrinsically a priori in so far as it will not rest on the particular data of
our sensitive-rational experiences, but on the experiences itself and its necessary conditions.
Metaphysics, however, will be extrinsically a posteriori in as far as there must be an

40
experience of data (whichever they are), before we can have the transcendental analysis of the
experiences and the transcendental deduction of the necessity of its conditions.
In as far as metaphysics is a priori, it pre-exists totally and perfectly in the sensitive- rational
experiences in which it is exercised. Again metaphysics does not have, as a pre requisite, the full
elaboration of scientific knowledge as some thought it had. As long as the proper standpoint of
metaphysics has not been discerned, one would be inclined to think of metaphysics as a
synthesis of all sciences. But once its standpoint has been discovered i.e. to explain “the
science of being as being”, then we need only explore our necessary affirmation of being in its
essential conditions, without having to wait for all the returns of scientific investigations.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What do you understand by ‘a priori synthesis’?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2. How do you explain Pratyakṣa?
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
3.14 KEY WORDS
Dialectic: Dialectic (the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to
both Eastern and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word “dialectic” originates in
Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato's Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is rooted in the
ordinary practice of a dialogue between two or more people who hold different ideas and wish to
persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if
they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.
Judgment: Judgment is an act of the intellect in which we say something of an object by way of
affirmation or denial.

3.15 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Coreth, Emerich. Metaphysics. English Edition by Joseph Donceel with a Critique by
BernardLonergan. New York: Seabury Press, 1973.
Heidegger, Martin. What is Philosophy?. Trans. William Kluback and Jean T. Wilde.
41
Plymouth: Vision, 1989.
Magee, Bryan. The Great Philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Marias, Julian. History of Philosophy. Tr. Stanley Appelbaum and Clarence C.
Strowbridge.
New York: Dover Publications, 1967.
Norris, Christopher. “Deconstruction,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward
Craig, Vol.2. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
Panthanmackel, George. “From Dichotomy to Perichoresis: An Overview of Western
Philosophical Methods,” in Philosophical Methods: Through the Prevalent to a Relevant. Ed.
Johnson J. Puthenpurackal. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2004.
Panthanmackel, George. In Struggle and Dialogue With: A Concise History of Western Medieval
Philosophy. Bangalore: ATC, 1992.
Rao, Srinivasa. “Philosophical Method in Indian Philosophy,” in Philosophical Methods:
Through the Prevalent to a Relevant. Ed. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal. Bangalore: Asian Trading
Corporation, 2004.

3.16 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1. Dialectic method of Socrates and Plato was essentially a method of discussion and debate in
which the participants progressed from one point to another, each one disputing the point of
the other until they could reach an undisputable point. It consisted in reasoning through rigorous
dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation intended to expose false beliefs and elicit
truth. Dialectic takes a different turn in Hegel. Hegelian dialectic is not merely epistemological,
but ontological too. The method of dialectic involves thesis- antithesis-synthesis in which thesis,
antithesis and synthesis are only different ‘moments’ in the movement of thought resulting in
both continuity and difference. The very birth of the thesis is the birth of the antithesis as well as
the synthesis.
2. The principles of different sciences are arrived at by means of inductive process. For example
in psychiatry some general principles concerning mental disease are discovered by observation
of the behavior of mental patients, its recording, its analysis, classification and finally
generalization to arrive at certain common principles. This is the method of induction.
Check Your Progress II

42
1. A priori synthesis is that union of parts which is always taking place in certain
experiences, thus the data of that experience may vary, e.g. the direct judgment always
implies a concrete and objective synthesis.
2. Pratyaksha (perception) is sense perception including mental perception. Perception
may be determinate or indeterminate, ordinary or extraordinary, or yogic. This is a
method universally accepted by all schools of Indian philosophy, but with their own
individually prescribed interpretations.

43
UNIT 4 THEORIES OF CAUSATION*

Structure

4.0 Objectives

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Aristotle’s Physics and the Four Causes

4.3 Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause (Causa Sui)

4.4 Spinoza’s Law of Causation

4.5 Hume’s critique of Causation

4.6 Alternative Interpretations: Chaos Theory

4.7 Let Us Sum Up

4.8 Key Words

4.9 Further Readings and References

4.10 Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0 OBJECTIVES

The Law of Causation or the Principle of Causality states that whatever happens (action) or
whatever is (being) must have a cause, of which that happening or being is the effect.
Philosophers from ancient times have argued that in Nature there is nothing which does not
have a cause for its being or existence. In the light of these suggestions the present unit will
acquaint the learner with the following;

 The ideas of Causation and the Law of Causation

 Theory of Causation Given by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza respectively.
 The critical assessment by David Hume of the idea of Causation.

*
Dr. Anish Chakravarty, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Kamla Nehru College,
University of Delhi.
  An alternative interpretation of causation as presented in the form of the Chaos
Theory.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Causation or Causality is an integral concept and event that is regarded as being a fact about
Nature and the Universe at large. It is immensely significant as almost all knowledge, and
especially scientific knowledge depends upon it. Causation is where something influences
another thing, which could either be a process or an event, leading to some change or the
production of something. Here the latter is known as an effect, whereas the thing which
influences another is known as a cause. So, usually any definition of causality comprises the
binary terms ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ to complete it. Thinkers from antiquity till present have
argued that there is nothing in nature which does not have a cause. The Law of Causation
therefore states that whatever is, must have a cause. Suggesting also that, if there is a thing or
an event, then there will be an effect that will inevitably follow from that thing or event.
Causality implies change. Change is another very important concept that we grasp while
observing Nature. Change is a transformation of something into another thing where the thing
transformed passes from being (existence) to non being (non-existence), say a paper burnt
becomes non-existent after it turns into ash; and to what it is transformed which was not there
before is coming into being (existence) from non being (non-existence), say the ash before
the paper is burnt is non-existent. Importantly, causation or causality involves three important
concepts, the idea of cause, the idea of effect, and the idea of change (from non being to
being and vice versa). Hence what appears central to and implied from, the idea of causation,
is the idea of ‘becoming’.

Historically, the study of causation in western philosophical thinking dates back to the times
of the ancient Greek thinkers, and finds it instantiation in the philosophies of Parmenides and
Heraclitus. Where Parmenides argued that a transition from being to non-being (and vice
versa) is a contradiction and therefore impossible (owing to the opposite nature of being and
non being); Heraclitus believed that the reality is always in the state of neither being nor non
being but becoming (i.e., a constant transition of being to non being and vice versa). These
issues were further taken up for discussion by the likes of Plato and especially Aristotle who
argued that there are multiple ways in which the relation between cause and effect can be
understood. The present unit deals with the theoretical understanding of the concept of
causation and its critique. It begins with Aristotle’s four kind of causes that shows that cause
and effect are not of the same nature, followed by its universal form that we find in the
philosophy of Aquinas. Next is the understanding of causation as a law and principle as
explained by Spinoza. This is followed by a critique by Hume who believed that causation is
merely a constant conjunction of our observed sequences of things and events. Lastly, the
chapter brings up a brief discussion on causation in relation to science and chaos theory.

4.2 ARISTOTLE’S PHYSICS AND THE FOUR CAUSES

Aristotle was interested in understanding not only the phenomena (physics) but also what is
beyond the phenomena (metaphysics). How the universe or Nature works, how the knower
can understand how it works, and the quest for discovering the foundational principle that is
behind everything that we observe, which is the source of the mechanism in Nature (arche)
were some of the most central concerns of Aristotelian philosophy. In his works Physics and
Metaphysics, Aristotle describes four kinds of causes that explain the natural phenomena, and
the human production and action. The following causes, according to Aristotle’s explanation
are responsible for coming into being, or change, or creation:

1. The Material Cause (Matter)

2. The Formal Cause (Form)
3. The Efficient Cause (Agency), and
4. The Final Cause (Purpose or Telos)

4.2.1 The Material Cause (Matter)

If a thing is there then the material cause is what is given as a response to the question, “what
that thing is made up of?” The matter, out of which the thing (effect) is made up, is the
material cause of that thing. Say for instance brass is the material cause of a coin, bricks are
the material cause of a building, cellulose is a material cause of a plant, minerals are a
material cause of a stone, etc.

4.2.2 The Formal Cause (Form)

If a thing is there then the formal cause is what is given as a response to the question, “what
that thing is?” The concept, definition or the form of the thing (effect) is the formal cause of
that thing. Another way to put it is that the shape of a thing as conceptualised will be the form
of the thing. Say for instance the appearance, shape and form of a statue is the formal cause
of a built statue (effect).

4.2.3 The Efficient Cause (Agency)

If a thing is there then the efficient cause is what is given as a response to the question, “who
made that thing or what made the change in the thing to be what it is?”; “Who or what
created that thing?” Say for instance the sculptor is the efficient cause of a built statue, a
baker is the efficient cause of the cake, or according to Aristotle, God (Unmoved Mover) is
the efficient cause of all motion and change.

4.2.4 The Final Cause (Purpose or Télos)

If a thing is there then the final cause is what is given as a response to the question, “what is
the purpose of that thing?” This is with the understanding that a thing is created or comes into
effect for a purpose or goal. Say for instance the purpose of a duster is to clean, purpose of
teeth is mastication etc.

According to Aristotle these four causes are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive of
everything and of each phenomenon in Nature. Aristotle differentiates between two kinds of
causes, viz. intrinsic and extrinsic. Since Matter and Form pertain directly to the thing, and
are the defining aspects of a thing, they are intrinsic causes. However, Agency and Purpose
are extrinsic causes because they are external and not integral part of that thing. A further
development of and a philosophical discussion on Aristotelian causal theory was carried out
by the philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas who formulated the Cosmological
Argument for proving the existence of God (First Cause).

4.3 THOMAS AQUINAS’ FIRST CAUSE (CAUSA SUI)

Thomas Aquinas was a medieval Italian philosopher and theologian who was influenced by
Aristotle and referred to him as ‘The Philosopher’. Aquinas in his Summa Theologica argued
that the four causes of Aristotle are exhaustive and that there cannot be any other type of in
addition to the ones identified by Aristotle, namely material, formal, efficient, and final.
Aquinas however prioritised one kind of cause over another. He believed that the matter is
shaped by the form as there cannot be matter without form; the form is actualised by the
Agency— Human or Godly— as the efficient cause; and lastly the Agent has to have a
purpose to create or to bring change into something, hence the final cause is the most
prioritised cause. The list of causes in order of priority are:

1. Final Cause
2. Efficient Cause
3. Formal Cause, and
4. Material Cause

Aquinas’ philosophy is largely based on the Law of Causation, which entails the assertion
that there is nothing from which an effect does not follow, and there is a cause behind
everything that there is. There is a continuous chain of cause and effects in Nature, however,
the chain does not recede backwards infinitely. Since infinite regress implies indefiniteness
and prohibits finality, Aquinas proposed the concept of the First Cause (Causa Sui or Prima
Causa). The First cause is the self-caused cause, i.e., it is the cause of itself, thereby
terminating the possibility of infinite regress. According to this view there is no cause which
is prior to the First Cause; and every cause, which is not the First Cause, is also an effect (is
simply a result of another cause).

This First Cause is further identified by Aquinas as God. The above argument, as given by
Aquinas, is also known as the First Cause Argument. The modern understanding of this
argument avoids the infinite regress by suggesting an alternative explanation which does not
account for a backward tracing of the causal events, rather focusses on the epistemology of
conclusive regress of explanations of causes, so an effect is made sensible and intelligible by
its cause, which again is rendered intelligible by another cause, and so on. Now if we do not
halt this series then we will reach a complex point where the causes will become
unintelligible and non-explanatory. And the universe will look like an unintelligible reality.
Aquinas sees this regress as culminating in a self-explanatory reality of the whole. Through
this, the argument supports the conclusion that there must be a prime cause which is self-
caused. The idea of the First Cause has however been questioned by philosophers who point
out that we cannot be certain as to whether or not the universe is in fact an unintelligible
endless reality. Aquinas’ First Cause argument is a form of a Cosmological argument for the
proof of existence of God.

4.4 SPINOZA’S LAW OF CAUSATION

Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza is regarded as a Monist and a Pantheist. A major
building block of Spinoza's philosophy is the concept of cause and effect. In his magnum
opus Ethics, Spinoza, explained that the world is an unfathomable system of cause-and-effect
relationships where a body in motion contacts another body and so on. The first body causes
the movement of the second. And the second one moving is the effect of being struck by the
first. If the second didn't move, then it didn't get hit by the first. The word “cause” has been
subjected to much scrutiny and debate by scholars of Spinoza, for it is very much possible
that for him, cause was understood as a logical explanation. Spinoza argues that there was
only one substance namely God or Nature. He says that there cannot exist in the universe two
or more substances having the same nature or attribute. Spinoza considered the terms Nature,
Universe or Cosmos, and God to be synonymous. He reasoned that everything in the universe
is essentially one substance, and God causing changes in the cosmos would have meant that
God was part of the cosmos. Substance cannot be created nor destroyed. Substance, then, is
described as self-caused. It causes itself. It is not caused by anything else; otherwise, it would
not be a true substance. Since substance is beginning-less and endless, the universe too has
also always been there. Nature therefore, was never created, according to Spinoza's thought,
nor can it ever come to an end. Time which is a part of Nature extends forever, infinitely,
backwards and forward, so there never was a beginning moment, and there will never be a
final moment. Further, the cosmos or Nature extends incessantly outwards spatially; there is
no end. Spinoza held that every substance is necessarily infinite. God or Cosmos denotes this
one infinite reality. Notably, this view is quite divergent from the one given by Aquinas.

Spinoza argues that if God is all there is, then God causes everything. If a cause exists, then
the effect from it must follow, and likewise for Spinoza, if there is causation, then everything
is determined. It is of the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, not as contingent.
Individual things exist with a finite extension and duration; modes have finite existence; they
get created as things in time and cease to exist after a point in time. Finite things are born,
live and die. In extension, they are bodies or things and in thought, they are minds or ideas.
Particular things are part of nature or the universe or God and there are infinitely many things
and ideas as well as infinite possible things and ideas. Particular things and ideas are in God,
but they are not the same thing as God. Individual or particular things exist in sequences of
cause and effect. Spinoza maintained that each individual thing, or anything which is finite
and has a determinate existence, can neither exist nor be determined to produce an effect
unless it is determined to exist and produce an effect by another cause, which is also finite
and has a determinate existence. Again, this last cause also can neither exist nor be
determined to produce an effect unless it is determined to exist and produce an effect by
another, which is also finite and has a determined existence, and so on, to infinity. Being a
rationalist, this is Spinoza’s thorough and deterministic philosophy of the law of Causation.
His theory of causation is best understood within his strict deterministic cosmic system.
Spinoza ascribes this causal determinism not only to things but also to humans. None of the
attributes, including mind and body, are free, there is no free will, rather everything is
influenced by a prior cause and so on.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. Explain what are is Material Cause and Formal Cause with examples.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. What is the law of Causation? Briefly explain.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.5 HUME’S CRITIQUE OF CAUSATION

Scottish philosopher David Hume was an empiricist who raised critical questions against the
law of causation, which was recognized as the basis of reasoning and scientific knowledge.
What is regarded as the law of causation, was recognized by Hume as a ‘constant
conjunction’, a position he elucidated in his A Treatise of Human Nature. The cause effect
relation was for him a mere sequence of repeated events conditioning us to relate these linear
sequences in a logical sequence of causal influence. Hume argued that all our reasoning is
causal in nature. And the most significant feature of this reasoning is that it is a part of the
scientific inductive method of investigation of nature. Hume believed that the connection
between cause and effect is the primary concept behind our thinking about facts and
empirical study. As we saw above, it has been discussed at length by Aristotle, Aquinas, and
Spinoza, who admit of there being a necessary connection between cause and effect.

A cause necessarily produces an effect and each effect necessarily has to have a cause or
reason behind it. Hume objects to this by asking ‘where is the observation or impression that
gives me the idea of causation?’ Hume explains that among the two things or events between
which a causal relation is established, we can only observe contiguity (two things or events
before and after in space), priority (two things or event are in temporal succession), and
proximity (two things or events are relatively close to each other); but we fail to trace any
impression of there being a necessary connection or causality between them. The law or
principle that everything must have a cause and that nothing is without a cause had hitherto
not been questioned and it had been accepted by scholastic as well as modern philosophers
alike. Hume however pointed out that since there is no impression of causal connection
between things or events, there is no possibility of demonstrating causation rationally. But the
question is why do we still believe in the law of causation? Or to say in other words, what is
the basis of the belief that a particular cause must necessarily lead to a particular effect?
Hume clarifies that owing to our habit (custom) and our mental propensity whenever we
observe and experience ‘constant conjunction’ between two objects/events repeatedly then
we start getting conditioned to expect the same effects from the same causes in the future.
Accordingly, however, there is no empirical or rational justification of causation but only
psychological. In presenting this explanation, Hume shifted causation from physics and
brought it within the domain of psychology. This revolutionary critique presented a challenge
to Newtonian Mechanics which was recognised later by Kant. Seemingly taking cue from
Hume’s suggestions about causation being a psychological propensity or habit, Kant
identified Causation as a category of Understanding. For Kant (like Hume) causation was
therefore no more part of the absolutely real objective world, but rather it was part of the
epistemic apparatus of human agents.

Hume redefined the cause-effect relation from its traditional meaning. Hume was an
emotivist with regard to the status of morality and believed that what is true of morality is
also true for science as both are based on psychological tendencies and propensities. If there
is no impression there cannot be any idea corresponding to that impression. And since we
have no impression of the law of causation, what we call the law of causation is simply a
mental feeling. This law of causation comes from the repeated patterns of events which is
inductively believed to be certain. This is what Hume calls the problem of induction. The
instances are limited of repetitive events, but we formulate laws out of it. The fallacy of
deriving certainty from inductive reasoning leads to the misnomer of the principle of
uniformity of nature, which gives the false impression that we can make causal scientific
laws and understand Nature. However, since necessary causal connection does not come from
any sensory impressions, it is a human imagination and subjective exposition. It was for this
reason that Hume emphasised on the study of Human nature and the psychological
association of ideas. As said it is only our mental propensity to create false ideas between
causes and their effects, and they are not in the objects, they are not factual, but are in the
mind. These ideas of necessary connection (causation) are not derived from reason either, for
reason only works of what we have experienced, hence its neither sensory experience nor
reason that begets this idea but only our psychological feelings, and repetition of these events
condition us to predict a particular effect from a particular cause. Necessary connection
between objects is an impossibility because the method for empirical investigation is
induction which only establishes probable truths, not certainty. Hume is regarded as being
sceptical about the possibility of knowledge of matters of facts, for any such knowledge relies
upon causation, induction, and uniformity in nature as its basis and it therefore lacks
necessity and certainty.

4.6 ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS: CHAOS THEORY

There are many alternative interpretations of causation, out of which we shall be focussing on
the chaos theory. All sciences accept and rest on the assumption that there is space, time
continuum and there are causes at least in the macroscopic sphere and knowing the causes
behind phenomena can help us understand the way the universe functions. Causation is very
fundamental to all natural, life, and behavioural sciences. Chaos theory is the scientific and
mathematical study of cases where like any other case or situation, deterministic causal laws
apply, however, since the production effects are extremely sensitive to the causes, the
causation almost becomes random and chaotic making determination of causes and their
corresponding effects almost impossible. Chaos theory does not deny causal connections but
because these connections are too subtle (assumed theoretically) that it appears that there is
no causation happening between the things under observation.

One important aspect of this theory is the butterfly effect. It is described as a phenomenon
where a slight change in the scenario or to say in other words, a minimal causal influence can
bring about a large change in the result or the effects. The underlying principle is that the
magnitude of the causal force may not necessary be equal to the force of the effect or the
outcome. The name of this theory has come from the metaphor that a butterfly flaps its wings
at a location and as a result there is a tornado at a distant location. This effect is often noticed
in meteorology, where it is a challenge to find what has led to a certain disturbance in the
weather. The implication is that the intensity of a cause can be weak but it can lead to
tremendous effects leading to a great difference between the two states, and likewise there
can be a reverse butterfly effect where the intensity of the cause can be a lot and the effect is
minimal, to the extent that the difference may even be hardly noticeable. This theory makes
us understand that causation may be significant or completely insignificant as a natural
phenomenon.

4.7 LET US SUM UP

The unit discusses various ideas and theories of causation from the ancient, medieval, modern
and contemporary perspectives. The unit includes some of the most prominent and significant
developments of the principle of causality. We learned that a certain cause is a principle of
influence which brings about an effect or result. Likewise, an effect is a principle which is an
outcome of a causal influence. In principle every effect has a cause and vice versa.
Traditionally, causality has been classified by Aristotle in his metaphysics under four types—
material, formal, efficient, and final cause. Later these four causes were grouped as intrinsic
and extrinsic causes. A further development of the philosophical idea of causation was
developed in the medieval times by Thomas Aquinas, who used the principle of causation as
the basis of demonstrating the existence of God, through the Cosmological argument.
Aquinas argued for the existence of the Self caused cause, which is the First Cause and made
the law of Causation divine and Universal by equating it to theism (God). Another
development of the idea of causation, as a strict geometric formulation, is presented by
Spinoza, who held that there is nothing from which an effect does not follow. This necessity
of every event or thing to be both cause and effect is the contribution of Spinoza, which he
justified in a pure rational manner.
The unit then takes up the critique of causation by Hume who questioned not just the
empirical and rational basis of the law of causation, but also denied its existence except as a
mere figment of the mind, a misapprehension due to constant conjunction of events and
getting habituated through that repetitive conjunction of those events. Hume reduces
causation to a mere repetition of sequences, and redefines the principle of cause and effect
from being an absolute principle to merely a habit and custom.
Lastly, the chapter discusses an alternative interpretation of the causal law, given in the form
of the chaos theory. Chaos theory brings apparently contrasting concepts of randomness and
cause and effect determination together and explains the meaning of cause and effect from
the point of view of their intensities, and suggests that unpredictability due to chaos and
predictability due to cause effect is not mutually exclusive always. The chapter concludes
with a special instance of the Butterfly effect.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What is causation according to Chaos Theory?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.8 KEY WORDS

Law of Causation : The law that ‘Every thing is a cause of something and is an effect of
some cause’.

Causa Sui : Self-caused cause

Constant Conjunction : Repeated observation of events that are successive and contiguous
in space and time.

4.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Aristotle. Physics. BK.II, Ch. III. Translated by P.H. Wicksteed and F.M.Cornford London:
Harvard University Press, 1929.
Chakravarty, Anish. God Neither Loves Nor Hates Anyone. XXIII World Congress of
Philosophy, Volume 61. Philosophy Documentation Center, 37-41, 2018.
Frost, Gloria, Aquinas on Efficient Causation and Causal Powers, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2022
Hampshire, Stuart. Spinoza and Spinozism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Smith, Leonard, Chaos Theory: A very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007
Strawson, Galen, The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism and David Hume, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989.

4.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I

1. A material cause is a cause which is responsible for the materiality of the thing under
consideration. It is what that thing is made up of. For example, the material cause of a table is
wood, the material cause of a rock is minerals, etc. A formal cause is the concept or idea
behind the thing. A thing cannot come into effect without its idea or form. For example, the
appearance and shape of a statue is the formal cause of the statue that is there.

2. There is nothing from which an effect does not follow, and every effect must have a cause.
This is the Law of Causation. There is a necessity that everything is caused. Every thing is a
cause of something and is an effect of some cause.

Check Your Progress II

1. Chaos theory is the scientific study of cases where like any other case or situation,
deterministic causal laws apply, however, since the production effects are extremely sensitive
to the causes, the causation becomes almost random and chaotic, making determination of
causes and their corresponding effects almost impossible. Chaos theory does not deny causal
connections but because these connections are too subtle (assumed theoretically), it appears
that there is no causation happening between the things under observation.