نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه مطالعات علم مؤسسۀ پژوهشی حکمت و فلسفۀ ایران

چکیده

مورگانتی و تاهکو از نوعی متافیزیک با عنوان «متافیزیک طبیعی‌شدۀ معتدل» دفاع می‌کنند. این طبیعی‌گرایی معتدل دربارۀ متافیزیک از یک سو، دربرابر طرح متافیزیک طبیعی‌شدۀ رادیکال فیلسوفانی چون لیدی‌من و راس و، از سوی دیگر، طرح‌هایی در دفاع از استقلال متافیزیک، همچون طرح لری پاول و جاناتان لو، قرار دارد. در تلقی آنها، متافیزیک از حیث موضوع با علم همپوشانی و از حیث روش از آن استقلال دارد. در این مقاله می‌کوشیم ابتدا تصویری بسنده از این طرح طبیعی‌گرایانه، در تقابل با دیگر طرح‌های مربوط به متاـ‌متافیزیک، ترسیم کنیم و سپس به بررسی و نقد آن بپردازیم. استدلال می‌شود که پروژۀ آنها از دو جنبه با چالش مواجه است. اولاً نمی‌تواند دفاع درخوری از همپوشانی موضوعیِ متافیزیک و علم داشته باشد؛ و ثانیاً نمی‌تواند معیار درخوری برای تحدید فعالیت متافیزیکی بر اساس طبیعی‌گرایی ارائه کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Critical Examination of The Moderate Naturalized Metaphysics

نویسنده [English]

  • Hassan Amiriara

Assistant Professor of Science Studies Department of Hikmat and Philosophy Research Institute of Iran

چکیده [English]

Morganti and Tahko advocate a kind of metaphysics that they call "moderate naturalized metaphysics." This moderate naturalism concerning metaphysics differs crucially with, on the one hand, Ladyman & Ross's radical project of naturalizing metaphysics and, on the other hand, proposals aiming to defend the autonomy of metaphysics, such as those of Larry Paul and Jonathan Lowe. Morganti and Tahko hold that metaphysics overlaps with natural sciences in terms of subject matter and has a sufficient degree of independence from it in terms of method. In this article, I will outline this naturalistic project, mainly in contrast with the meta-metaphysical views of Ladyman & Ross, Lowe, and Paul. Then I attempt to examine and criticize it, arguing that their project faces two main challenges. First, it cannot suitably address the overlap between metaphysics and science regarding the subject matter. Second, it cannot provide a criterion for limiting and constraining the metaphysical activity based on naturalism.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Metaphysics
  • Naturalism
  • Metaphysical modality
  • Natural sciences
Amiriara, H. (2019). On Reality of Events in the Philosophy of Time. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 13(26), 53-82 (In Persian).
Amiriara, H., & Karbasizade, A. E. (2021). Ambiguity in naturalized metaphysics: a case study in the philosophy of time and theory of relativity. Sophia Perennis, 17(38), 261-283 (In Persian).
Bourne, C. (2006). A Future for Presentism: Oxford University Press.
Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chakravartty, A. (2013). On the Prospects of Naturalized Metaphysics. In D. Ross, J. Ladyman, & H. Kincaid (Eds.), Scientific Metaphysics (pp. 27-50): Oxford University Press.
French, S. (2018). Toying with the Toolbox: How Metaphysics Can Still Make a Contribution. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(2), 211-230. doi:10.1007/s10838-018-9401-8
French, S., & McKenzie, K. (2012). Thinking outside the toolbox: Towards a more productive engagement between metaphysics and philosophy of physics. European journal of analytic philosophy, 8(1), 42-59.
French, S., & McKenzie, K. (2015). Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. In T. Bigaj & C. Wüthrich (Eds.), Rethinking Outside the Toolbox: Reflecting Again on the Relationship between Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. (pp. 25-54): Brill.
Ladyman, J. (2012). Science, metaphysics and method. Philosophical studies, 160(1), 31-51.
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowe, E. J. (2001). The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity, and time. Oxford Oxford University Press.
Lowe, E. J. (2002). A Survey of Metaphysics (Vol. 67): Oxford University Press.
Lowe, E. J. (2011). The rationality of metaphysics. Synthese, 178, 99-109.
Lowe, E. J. (2014). Grasp of Essences versus Intuitions: An Unequal Contest. In A. R. Booth & D. P. Rowbottom (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 256-268): Oxford University Press.
McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The unreality of time. Mind, 457-474.
Melnyk, A. (2013). Can Metaphysics Be Naturalized? And If So, How? In D. Ross, J. Ladyman, & H. Kincaid (Eds.), Scientific Metaphysics (pp. 79-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morganti, M. (2020). Moderately Naturalistic Metaphysics. In R. Bliss & J. Miller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics (pp. 468-479): Routledge.
Morganti, M., & Tahko, T. E. (2017). Moderately naturalistic metaphysics. Synthese, 194(7), 2557-2580.
Ney, A. (2012). Neo-positivist metaphysics. Philosophical studies, 160, 53-78.
Paul, L. A. (2012). Metaphysics as modeling: the handmaiden’s tale. Philosophical studies, 160(1), 1-29.
Putnam, H. (1967). Time and physical geometry. The Journal of Philosophy, 240-247.
Saatsi, J. (2017). Explanation and Explanationism in Science and Metaphysics. In M. Slater & Z. Yudell (Eds.), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: New Essays (pp. 163-191): Oxford University Press.
Saunders, S. (2002). How relativity contradicts presentism. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 50, 277-292.
Sider, T. (2002). Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. USA: Oxford University Press.
Stein, H. (1968). On Einstein--Minkowski Space--Time. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(1), 5-23.
Tallant, J. (2013). Intuitions in physics. Synthese, 190(15), 2959-2980.
Tallant, J. (2015). Metaphysics, Intuitions, and Physics. Ratio, 28(3), 286-301.
Tooley, M. (1997). Time, tense, and causation: Oxford University Press.
van Fraassen, B. (2002). The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.