CRS861 Advance Metaphysics

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES

COURSE CODE: CRS861
COURSE TITLE: ADVANCE METAPHYSICS

COURSE CODE: CRS861
COURSE TITLE: ADVANCED METAPHYSICS
CREDIT UNIT: 3
COURSE TEAM
COURSE DEVELOPER(S) Dr Anthony Okpanachi
Department of Philosophy
Kogi State University Ayingba
COURSE WRITER(S) Dr Anthony Okpanachi

Kogi State University Ayingba
COURSE EDITOR(S) Prof Jim Unah
University of Lago
COURSE REVIEWER Dr Eric Omazu
Dept of Religious Studies
National Open University of Nigeria
Abuja
YEAR OF REVIEW: 2021

© 2021 by NOUN Press
National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
University Village
Plot 91, Cadastral Zone Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway Jabi, Abuja
Lagos Office
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.noun.edu.ng
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
COURSE GUIDE
COURSE GUIDE
CRS861: ADVANCED METAPHYSICS – 3units
CONTENTS PAGES
1. Introduction ------------------------------------- ii
2. Course Aim ------------------------------------- ii
3. Course Objectives ------------------------------------- ii-iii
4. What You Will Learn in this Course --------------- iii-iv
5. Working Through The Course ------------- iv
6. Course Materials ----------------------------- iv
7. Study Units ----------------------------- iv-v
8. Set Textbooks ----------------------------- vi
9. Presentation Schedule ----------------------------- vii
10.Assessment ----------------------------- viii
11.How to Get the Most From this Course ----------- viii-ix
12.Tutor and Tutorials (Facilitation) ------------- ix
13.Summary ------------------------------------- ix
ii
CRS861: ADVANCED METAPHYSICS
Introduction
CRS861: Advanced Metaphysics is a three credit unit course. It is made up of 24
units which present very broad insights into what metaphysics as a major branch of
philosophy is interested in. This course studies systems of metaphysics: realism,
idealism, nominalism, universalism, etc. Concepts of nature, reality and thought.
Problems of Being, God and human nature; substance, freedom and determinism,
fatalism, participation, essence and existence, and chance. The relevance of
metaphysics to contemporary problems. Major modern and contemporary
philosophers. It also studies theories of time; the relationship between time, space
and consciousness. The perception of time in various cosmologies (African,
Western and Eastern); Time, permanence and change; time, temporality and
eternity.
The course is compulsory for obtaining an MA in philosophy. The course guide
gives an overview and description of the course content, explicates on why the
course is a key requirement in philosophical studies, present relevant course
materials and tools with various ways to utilizing these for the purpose of learning
and teaching. Practice questions in the form of review questions; that is,
presentation schedule with Tutor marked assignments is also added to this course
guide for effective learning by students.
Course Aim
The major aim of this course is to stimulate and facilitate an exciting learning
experience of students for quite an abstract and very often considered dry aspect of
philosophy – metaphysics. It not only introduces students to the very broad issues
central to metaphysics, it presents some of the nuances of the debates in a
iii
iii
systematic manner while demonstrating its connectedness with other aspects of
philosophy and of course other disciplines. The course objectives of this effort are
aimed at both to familiarise students with the nature, interest and science of
metaphysics as well as to make the learning experience exciting at the same time
for students. That is;
i. to enable students have a profound grasp of the main issues and themes
relevant to our study of metaphysics at some advanced level.
ii. to enable students state in clear terms what metaphysics is and what it is
not against the backdrop of the many misconceptions of metaphysics.
iii. to introduce students to how various cultures and societies or more
specifically regions view some of the problems and themes in
metaphysics.
iv. to be able to unequivocally show how metaphysics differs and relates
with and relevant to other disciplines as well as the society at large.
In addition to the broad objectives stated above, each unit as part of the larger
module frame also has specific objectives. They are stated at the beginning of
the unit. Students are encouraged to read and study them while they work their
way through the entire unit. These objectives help to gauge one’s familiarity
with the main issues discussed in the units and so students are encouraged to
utilize them accordingly. The unit objectives are to:
i. have an overview of the subject matter and scope of metaphysics.
ii. able to draw a line of distinction between what is and what is not
metaphysics.
iii. have a bird’s eye view of the themes and issues central to the discipline
of metaphysics.
iv. understand how the concept of metaphysics is conceptually and
theoretically understood.
vv
v. have a dashboard image of the various important moments in the
development/understanding of metaphysics.
vi. show the various sub-divisions and their concerns/subject matter.
vii. appreciate the perennial nature of some of the problems of metaphysics.
viii. understand the contributions of various important philosophers to
metaphysics; and
ix. stimulate metaphysical reflections as attempts to understanding the
intractable problems in metaphysics.
What you will Learn in this Course
The overall aim of PHI 314: Advance Metaphysics is to introduce and deepen
students’ appreciation of what the focus and interest of metaphysics is all about
as an important branch of philosophy. It also discusses the various branches and
their subject matter in ways that show the fundamental connection there is
between metaphysics and other aspects of philosophy. It hopes to stimulate
metaphysical reflection and thinking among students by ensuring there is a
profound appreciation of the various attempts to resolve some of the problems
in metaphysics over the years as well as make the learning experience very
exciting and interesting.
Working through the Course
To complete this course – Advance Metaphysics, you are required to carefully read
the study units, interact with the recommended texts and examine other accessible
materials especially those that are online. Each unit contains review or self-
assessment exercises. Note that in the course of time it will be required of you to
make presentation at both the individual and group levels and make submission of
same as well as written essay/assignment which will be assessed and graded as part
of your final assessment in this course. At the end of each module, the
reader/student will find a set of review questions and list of further readings to
vi
vi
assist the student to follow through by way of personal or self-study purposes. It is
worth explaining that the purpose of the exercises is to help the reader/student
engage in critical reading (reflective, a probing, questioning reading), rather than
the kind of passive reading in which we often indulge. Though many questions are
simply comprehension questions, which require readers/students to check their
understanding of the ideas in the text, others require readers/students to produce
their own examples, to draw out the implications, to evaluate arguments, and to
assess the materials they have read. These questions should be helpful in guiding
the thinking of students and should also provide useful materials for instructors.
Find below a list of all you will need to know in respect of the components of the
course.
Course Materials
The course has the following major components:
i. Course Guide
ii. Study Units
iii. Textbooks
iv. Assignment File
Kindly note that you must obtain the materials. In the event that you encounter any
problem in obtaining the text materials kindly contact your tutor.
Study Units
There are Nine (9) modules and twenty four (24) study units in the course. They
are:
Module 1: Metaphysics: Nature, Branches and Other Disciplines
Unit 1: Meaning, Conceptual and theoretical definition, branches and nature
Unit 2: General Issues and Problems in Metaphysics
Unit 3: The Relevance of Metaphysics
Module 2: Systems of Metaphysics
Unit 1: Realism
Unit 2; Idealism
Unit 3: Nominalism
Unit 4: Universalism
Unit 5: Concepts of Nature/Reality/Thought
Module 3: Problems of Being
Unit 1: Being and Non-Being (Nature, Characteristics and History)
Unit 2: The God Question in Metaphysics
Unit 3: Human Nature (Mind, Body and self-Identity)
Unit 4: The Mind-Body Problem (Some Theories/Debates)
Unit 5: Notion of Substance (Monism vs Pluralism)
Module 4: Freedom and Determinism
Unit 1: Freedom and Free Will
Unit 2: Determinism (Indeterminism, Fatalism ,Compatibilism vs
Imcompatibilism)
Module 5: Further Reflections on Some Other Problems of Metaphysics
Module 6: Participation
Module 7: Essence and Existence
Module 8: Chance/Indeterminacy and Causality
Module 9: Theories of Time and Space
Themes and Topics Reflected Upon Include: Time and its theories in various
traditions/cosmologies (African, Western and Eastern); Time, Space and
Consciousness; Time, Permanence and Change; Temporality and Eternity
Set Text Books
Aja, E. (1996). What is Philosophy? An African Inquiry. Enugu: Donze
Publications.
vii
Aja, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Publications.
Carroll, J. W. &Markosian, N. (2010).An Introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hamlyn, D. W. (1984). Metaphysics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1961).An Introduction to Metaphysics, tr. Ralph Maheim.Garden
City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Iroegbu, P. (1996). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri: International
Universities Press Ltd.
Kabuk, V. S. (2017). A Fundamental Approach to Philosophy of Education. Port
Harcourt: HOI Publishing Company.
Le Poidevin, R et al. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. London &
New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Loux, M. J & Zimmerman, D. W. (Eds.) (2003).The Oxford Handbook of
Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loux, M. J. & Zimmerman, D. W (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
Mbiti, J. S. (1969). African Religion and Philosophy. London: Heinemann.
Munford, S. (2012).Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ney, A. (2014). Metaphysics: An Introduction. London & New York: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis.
Omoregbe, J. (1996). Metaphysics Without Tears: A Systematic and Historical
Study. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.
Omoregbe, J. (2001). Knowing Philosophy: A General Introduction. Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.
Onyeocha, I. M. (2009).Introfil: A First Encounter with Philosophy, Second
Edition. Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Parrat, J. (1977). Time in traditional African thought, Religion, 7:2, 117-126.
Rea, M. (2014).Metaphysics: the Basics. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor
& Francis.
Unah, J. I. (1996, reprinted 1998). Metaphysics, Phenomenology and African
Philosophy. Ibadan: Hope publications.
Unah, J. I. (2010). Metaphysics. Lagos: University of Lagos Press.
Van Inwagen, P. (2015). Metaphysics, fourth edition. Colorado: Westview Press.
ix
ix
Presentation Schedule
Two presentations shall be expected from the students. The course facilitator will
allocate two topics to students and the mode in which they are to be prepared at the
commencement of the semester. The expected time frame for turning in the
assignments will also be made known by the facilitator. For example, the facilitator
expects the students to undertake the assignments at both the individual level and
at group/cluster levels. The facilitator is to organize the students into groups paying
attention to issues of gender balance and age groups. For the individual
assignment, each student is expected to work alone and to have the first assignment
submitted by mid-semester while the second assignment to be worked upon as a
group or cluster of students submitted at the end of the semester just before the
final written examination. Kindly note that for topics assigned to individual
students and group of students, it is expected that each student and leaders of the
cluster or group of students shall have a specific time to do a presentation and the
presentation opened up for discussion and contributions by other participants.
(Specifically, each student is given 15 minutes for the presentation – 10 minutes
for the presentation by individual students and 5 minutes is for discussion/question
and answers). This is to improve the communication and of course presentation
skills of students.
Both presentations attract equal marks (5% of the student’s total marks). Beyond
the presentations it is expected that the individual and group assignments be
forwarded to the facilitator for formal grading and assessment.
Assessment
Given that the presentations constitute just five (5%) of the student’s total score,
other components of the total assessment package will include two (2) short essays
of six (6) pages maximum and not less than five (5) pages including references.
These essays are to be typed-written using the New Times Roman in twelve (12)
font’s size with double line spacing. The recommended referencing is the APA 6th
xx
edition (available for free download online). The facilitator will outline a list of
topics from which students will be free to pick/select within a specific period of
time and report back to the facilitator to ensure students offering this course do not
write same topics. The essays constitute 10% of the expected final score of 100.
To guide against plagiarism, students are encouraged and expected to use the
following links for plagiarism check before submission of their essays/papers:
- https://plagiarism.org/
- https://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/plagiarism/index.html
The final component of the assessment the student is expected to undertake is the
examination which attracts 70% of the total score of 100.
How to Get the Most Out of this Course
To get the most out of this course, it is mandatory for students to:
- Have 75% of attendance through active participation in the entire
interactions and facilitations;
- Study each topic in the course materials prior to it being treated in the
class;
- Timely submission of assignments with strict observance of the timeline
or deadlines as failure to adhere to such will attract some penalties;
- Intra and Inter group sharing and discussions are encouraged among the
students for deeper understanding of the course;
- Download, access and use all the relevant materials for personal use;
- Practice the various review questions; that is, self-assessment exercises in
the main course material;
- Sit for the final examination;
- Contact the facilitator of the course in the event of any concern or
challenge you may encounter in the course of this interaction.
Tutor and Tutorials (Facilitation)
Online facilitation based on a learner-centered approach is the mode of facilitation
for this course. At the beginning of each topic, the facilitator will introduce the
xi
xi
topic before opening it up for class interaction and discussion in order to facilitate
the learning engagement. As has been emphasized, each student is expected to
study the course materials prior the classroom session and actively participate in
the discussion by way of making relevant contributions in terms of questions or
further reflections on the topic under study/discussion. The facilitator will at the
end of each session summarise the forum debate, upload relevant materials, videos
or podcasts to the forum and finally ensure information regarding the course is
properly disseminated to all students through email or SMS if and when the need
arises. The facilitator will solely be responsible for the grading and assessments of
students for the course.
Summary
Advance Metaphysics is an insight into what metaphysics is all about. Upon
completing this course, students will be able to know what metaphysics is,
xii
xii
metaphysical systems, metaphysical problems and other interesting aspects of
metaphysics.
xii
MAIN COURSE
MODULE 1: METAPHYSICS: NATURE, BRANCHES AND
OTHER DISCIPLINES
INTRODUCTION
This module is made of two study units. The first study unit focuses on the
question: what is metaphysics and what are its branches? The second study unit
addresses general issues, highlight problems central in metaphysics and examines
the question: is metaphysics relevant? In the first unit, you will learn the meaning
and subject matter of metaphysics; that is, various ways we can define and
understand metaphysics; conceptually and theoretically and outline the basic
subdivisions and the subject matter of each of the subdivisions of metaphysics.
UNIT 1: MEANING, CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL DEFINITION,
BRANCHES AND NATURE OF METAPHYSICS
CONTENTS:
i. Introduction
ii. Objective of the study
iii. Main Content
a. Meaning
b. Etymology of Metaphysics
c. Conceptual Definition
d. Theoretical Understanding
e. Branches of Metaphysics
f. Nature of Metaphysics
iv. Summary
v. Conclusion
vi. Tutor Marked Assignment
vii. References and Further Reading
i. Introduction
This unit presents the meaning, conceptual and theoretical understanding of
metaphysics. It also outlines the basic subdivisions of metaphysics while at the
1
same time characterising their subject matters. It does this to give students a
very broad context and background to the entire concern of this course. The
need for some general background and introductory reflection to refresh our
minds on what the nature of metaphysics is to foreground a deeper and better
appreciation of the basics and principles of this course - advance metaphysics.
To achieve this all important refresher exercise it is important to start by
undertaking a kind of stock taking of what is metaphysics and what is not
against the backdrop of the frequent misconceptions of this very important
branch of philosophy.
ii. Objectives of the study
This unit is intended to enable the students achieve the following objectives:
a. To define and delineate what is metaphysics.
b. To demonstrate what metaphysics is not
c. To know the various ways of defining a concept in philosophy generally; i.e.
theoretically and conceptually
d. To know the various subdivisions of metaphysics and the subject matters
thereof
iii. Main content
a. What is Metaphysics?
As a discipline and as a branch of philosophy metaphysics remains a significant
aspect of the discipline of philosophy to such an extent that philosophy cannot be
said to be worth its name without the study and appreciation of the core parts that
make up the discipline of philosophy. These core parts are fundamentally three viz:
- metaphysics, epistemology and axiology (ethics). The importance of metaphysics
along with epistemology and ethics cannot be overemphasized in one’s study of
philosophy. Thus, students of philosophy are expected to take courses in these
2
different aspects/branches of philosophy in order to make complete and
comprehensive their programme in philosophy.
Before we examine some of the various important themes and theories in
metaphysics it is important to clear some misconceptions about metaphysics. In
some contexts, metaphysics is wrongly/erroneously conceived to be generally said
to be wholly and entirely concerned with the great beyond and secrets of and about
the workings of the nature/universe such as the occult operations and mystical
powers. Occultism is not metaphysics and Metaphysics is not occultism (Iroegbu
1994: 15).
There are various positive ways of conceiving metaphysics that is worth outlining
for our purposes in this course. For example, one of the positive understandings of
what the subject matter of this branch of philosophy is concerned with provides a
rather broad picture of the focus of metaphysics. In this instance, metaphysics is
concerned with the study of being as such or the totality of reality or all that there
is. In fact, like other sciences, being is the subject matter of metaphysics. Thus, the
nature of being in its deepest aspects, its causes, properties is the focus of
metaphysics. Another positive way of looking at metaphysics also is that this
branch of philosophy is concerned with the nature of framework with which we
approach and seek to understand the world around us. This sort of Kantian and
post-Kantian image of the discipline of metaphysics plays a huge role in the
contemporary era of philosophy.
There are two ways to define metaphysics; conceptually or theoretically. The
former simply takes on the concept and analyses it. For example, it is a well-
known fact of history that the term originates from the Greek expression: Ta meta
ta physica (after the physics). Andronicus of Rhodes, who edited and collated
Aristotle’s works in C. 70 B.C. placed the work that Aristotle called First
3
philosophy, after the ones on Physics and termed it After the Physics. Therefore,
from the two Greek words that make it up “meta” – after, beyond, transcending
and “physics” – physics, body or matter to mean that which concerns itself beyond
the physical. Does it then follow that it does not consider things in the physical
world at all or in any sense at all? I think not, suffice it to note that it does seek
explanations of the nature of things per se in the most general sense and in ways
distinct from just being concerned with particular things. We will now attempt to
define metaphysics in the second way; theoretically. To define a term theoretically
is simply to outline how various experts or professionals in a field define the term.
In other words, their various theories of what the term is about.
Therefore to define metaphysics theoretically, metaphysics seeks to study reality as
such; that is, in its most comprehensive scope and basic principles/properties
(Iroegbu 1994: 21-22; Koons&Pickavance 2015). Other theorists and philosophers
define it differently thus; for Plato, metaphysics concerns itself with the knowledge
of the supra-sensible, for real things are existents in the world of forms/ideal world
which of course are explanatory of the transient world. In the view of Descartes,
metaphysics focuses on the knowledge of things beyond the sensible world. For
Kant, it is the transcendental analysis of the contents of the human mind. In the
view of Aquinas, metaphysics is the ultimate explanation of the mystery of being
visible and invisible, in the ultimate being (causal and final) which is God.
Metaphysics for Martin Heidegger is the ontological inquiry into the “Sein”,
“being”, “to be” of all that there is: why there are essents.
The scope or sub-division of metaphysics
In some texts, metaphysics is traditionally divided into two broad areas; general
and special metaphysics. While general metaphysics is often regarded as ontology
4
and sometimes interchangeably used for metaphysics broadly speaking (the science
of being as being); special metaphysics is further divided into three areas to
include; theodicy or natural theology (here the concern surrounds the nature and
problem of God, good and evil in the world, suffering, immortality of the souls,
and whether the universe has purpose or end or meaning at all). Other branches are
cosmology (centers on the origin, nature, structure and existence of the universe or
the cosmos) and rational psychology (focuses on the problem of mind, nature of
the mind-body problem and associated issues of consciousness).
The focus of these various branches outlined above show how comprehensive the
scope of metaphysics is. In other words, metaphysics seeks to deal with the nature
and totality of reality – what is.
Again, these branches of metaphysics reveal something about the fundamental
nature of this particular aspect of philosophy; that is, metaphysics. A quick review
of our foregoing discussion on the various branches into which metaphysics
traditionally breaks show that a thorough study of metaphysics gives one
preliminary insights albeit panoramic insights into other areas of philosophy. One
is likely to encounter these various aspects during one’s study of the course such as
philosophy of mind, philosophy of nature/science amongst others. At this point, it
is crucial to say a few things about the nature of metaphysics in relation to other
disciplines in a very brief manner.
As our introductory reflections show that metaphysics studies reality in its ultimate
sense and context, does it make sense to claim that the concerns of other
disciplinary endeavours seem rather superfluous. For example, as we have
demonstrated that general metaphysics as ontology studies being, what then is the
need for other disciplines such as anthropology, geology, biology and others? Do
these other disciplines study nothing? Or study same being? If these disciplines do
5
study being, what is the nature of the differences there are between metaphysics as
ontology which studies being as against these other intellectual disciplines that
study various aspects of being since they do not study nothing?
One distinguishing factor is the approach or method adopted by these disciplines as
against the method adopted/used in metaphysics or philosophy generally. Whereas
these sciences, for example, use the empirical method that involves the
observation, experimentation, testing, quantification, modeling and analysis to
access and warrant their results. Metaphysics, on the other hand, uses the meta-
empirical approach that involves reflection, logical and argumentative reasoning
procedures to engaging its subject matter.
Another point of difference between metaphysics and the other sciences worth
noting is the nature of the basic question posed in these disciplines. While
questions in these other sciences are formulated along the lines of the ‘how’
questions, metaphysics proceeds roughly by posing the ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions
as fundamental to assessing its subject matter. According to Iroegbu (26-27), in the
questioning task, there are two-fold concerns; the formal and the material object of
metaphysics. Whereas the former is whatever all realities is, existing beings, all
essences. The latter; that is, the formal object of metaphysics is the act of
existence, the ‘to be’, the being of whatever is, just as the formal object of
medicine is health.
General Issues and Problems in Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the science of being, its attributes, its principles and its categories.
It is in other words, that part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic issues
of reality, existence, personhood, and freedom versus determinism. Aristotle calls
it “First Philosophy” because it concentrates on the first or most basic questions we
6
encounter when we study the issues of life. It grapples with such questions as what
reality is, whether it is limited to the physical, material world alone, or whether
reality could exist in the mind and what difference there is, if any, between realty
and appearance. In Aristotle, Metaphysics when called ‘First Philosophy’, it is
used to distinguish it from second philosophy or the theory of nature (Physics).
The subject matter of metaphysics therefore is being as being, of its principles and
causes and of the divine.
Metaphysics is a philosophical inquiry into the most basic and general features of
reality and our place in it. Because of its very subject matter, metaphysics is often
philosophy at its most theoretical and abstract. Our simple, intuitive reflections on
our familiar experiences of everyday life and the concepts that we use to describe
them can lead us directly to some of the most profound and intractable problems of
metaphysics.
On the nature of existence, we shall deal with the question of what it is for
something to exist and what it is for us to acknowledge something as existing. The
problem of identity – we shall try to know whether qualitative indiscernibility
entails identity, or whether identity is always necessary or can be contingent,
whether identity is relative to mortals. On "modal" concepts like necessity and
possibility, essence and essential property, necessary and contingent truth, and
"possible worlds." what it is for something to be a "thing," and, in particular, what
makes one thing at one time to be "the same thing" as something at another time.
This part is followed by a group of writings addressing the same question for
persons: there is a clear and deep difference, most of us would feel, between our
continuing to live till tomorrow and our being replaced by an exact "molecule-for-
molecule" duplicate in our sleep tonight; but in what does this difference consist?
We shall also come across the nature of causation, the relation that David Hume
7
famously called "the cement of the universe." Major contemporary accounts of the
nature of causation will be presented. In the opening of the paragraph of his
introduction to metaphysics, Heidegger articulates his metaphysical question about
reality.
Why are there essents rather than nothing? That is the question. Clearly it is no
ordinary question. Why are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than
nothing? Obviously this is the first of all questions, though not in a chronological
sense. Individuals and peoples ask a good many questions in the course of their
historical passage through time. They examine, explore, and test a good many
things before they run into the question “why are there essents rather than
nothing”. Many men and women never encounter this question, if by encounter we
mean not merely to hear and read about it as an interrogative formulation but to ask
the question; that is, to bring it about, to raise it, to feel its inevitability. (Martin
Heidegger, 1961, p.1.)
According to Heidegger, the question, why are there essents rather than nothing? Is
first in rank among other questions. It is so because it is the most far reaching the
deepest and the most fundamental of all questions (2).
4.0 Conclusion
This study unit addressed the question of what is metaphysics and the subject
matter of metaphysics.
5.0 Summary
This study unit examined the meaning of metaphysics, its branches and its nature.
It revealed that the nature and focus of metaphysics is the effort to give the deepest
meaning to all of reality. This effort includes not only the things that are beyond
the physical but inclusive of the very things present in the physical as well. For
8
example, while there is an interest to tell of the place of the human person within
the attempt to construct a comprehensive story of reality. Thus seen, the discipline
of metaphysics remains a core and an indispensable aspect of the human enterprise
to make meaning of the universe.
6.0 Self-Assessment Test
1. Attempt a theoretical and conceptual Definition of metaphysics.
2. What are the branches of metaphysics and their subject matters?
3. How is metaphysics different from other sciences?
4. How can you demonstrate the relationship between metaphysics and other
sciences?
7.0 References and Further Readings
Ajah, E. (1996). What is Philosophy? An African Inquiry. Enugu: Donzie Family
Cirlce Publications.
Omoregbe J. (1994). Metaphysics Without Tears. Lagos: Joja Press Ltd.
Koons, R. C. &Pickavance, T. H. (2015).Metaphysics: The
Fundamentals.Chichester: WILEY Blackwell Publication.
Iroegbu, P. (1995). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy.Owerri: International
9
UNIT 2 - GENERAL ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND RELEVANCE OF
METAPHYSICS
CONTENTS:
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective of the study
3.0 Main Content
4.0 Summary
5.0 Conclusion
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
7.0 Suggested References
1.0 Introduction
This unit examines the general issues, problems and the question of the relevance
of metaphysics. It seeks to outline briefly what the fundamental issues in
metaphysics are about with a view of setting the stage for our engagement with the
next module on the systems of metaphysics.
2.0 Learning Objectives
The objectives of this study include:
a. To highlight the overview of the issues and problems of metaphysics
b. To examine the relevance of metaphysics against the backdrop of the anti-
metaphysical thinking in society
3.0 Main Content: Overview of the General Issues, Problems and Relevance of
Metaphysics
The primary goal is to examine some of the questions around the place and
relevance of metaphysics to not only philosophy but other areas of life and society.
While it must be acknowledged that the voyage of metaphysics had not always
been a smooth sailing one, it is important for metaphysicians to always
demonstrate what and why metaphysics is not only central to philosophy but other
aspects of life particularly to contemporary problems and issues. Thus, at the end
of this module students would be able to tell the importance of metaphysics.
The voyage of metaphysics has not been a smooth sailing one; indeed, during
much of the middle half of the century, metaphysics was in the doldrums, at least
within the analytic tradition. This was largely due to the anti-metaphysical
influence of the two then dominant philosophical trends. Logical positivism and its
10
formalistic, hyper-empiricist legacies lingered through the 1950s and 1960s in the
United States, nourishing an atmosphere that did not encourage serious
metaphysics, while in Britain the anti-metaphysical animus derived from "ordinary
language" philosophy and the later works of Wittgenstein. However, metaphysics
began a surprisingly swift, robust comeback in the 1960s, and since then has been
among the most active and productive areas of philosophy. It is now flourishing as
never before, showing perhaps that our need for metaphysics is as basic as our
need for philosophy itself. I believe our subsequent interactions will give a broad
glimpse of metaphysics from the Ancient through this century.
According to Hamlyn (1995: 9), “from time to time in the history of philosophical
thought philosophers of the positivist orientation have come up with criteria of
meaningfulness by which metaphysics could be shown to be nonsense in one fell
swoop. Hume, for example, wished to consign to the flames anything that
contained, in effect, pure a priori reasoning, except for ‘abstract reasoning
concerning quantity and number”. Later philosophers, such as Ayer, have claimed
that because metaphysical theses are not verifiable by reference to experience and
are not merely logical or mathematical in content they are nonsense. In neither of
the cases is there an attempt to examine metaphysical arguments closely”.
Relevance of Metaphysics
Aja (21) presents an analogy to demonstrate the relevance of metaphysics to
philosophy as well as other disciplines. In the analogy philosophy is considered as
a tree whose survival depends on its root through which the tree is not only
anchored but the requisite nutrients it needs to flourish and fructify are obtained
and supplied from the ground which in turn fed into the various branches that bear
fruits as imagery and representative of the various sciences. From this imagery one
can then suggest that the survival of the tree itself, quality and in fact quantity of
the fruits are largely dependent on the extent to which the roots are well rooted to
11
provide for the entire tree to flourish. Little wonder metaphysics is considered to
be the capstone of philosophy such that when philosophy is emptied of
metaphysics, it renders it very barren.
It is no doubt that some metaphysical positions have in the past gone so abstract,
hair-splitting and grossly noumenal that they were completely removed from the
very reality they set out to explain. They became so transcendental to be true. In
some systems, the science became simply a doctrine of axioms that explains
neither this-worldly nor the other-worldly reality. It became entirely irrelevant. It
must strive not to be reduced to the branch of empirical sciences, the discipline
ought to be a relevant undertaking. It must seek to address the burning problems of
concrete reality at its own level and with its own method. Such issues that must be
investigated must reflect on questions of the after-life, the fate of the dead, the
relationship between life and the after-life, the various nuances of the constituents
of the human person in the vast universe of which the human person is part,
(Iroegbu 31).
4.0 Summary
This study unit examined and outlined some of the general issues and problems in
metaphysics. It also discussed the relevance of metaphysics against the backdrop
12
of the growing positivistic culture that tend to see the end of metaphysics. Despite
all of the anti-metaphysical tendencies the discipline of metaphysics has continued
to wax stronger than ever as a deeply relevant and intellectually rewarding
enterprise not only for the individual philosopher but also the various sciences and
society at large.
5.0 Conclusion
Metaphysics remains the soul of philosophy to such an extent that to empty
philosophy of metaphysics is to render philosophy barren. A thorough assessment
of the place of metaphysics reveals also how pervasive metaphysics is. It must
however be cautious in the matters it indulges with so as to avoid the charge of
irrelevance as has happened in the course of the history of metaphysics when it
went about concerning itself with hair-splitting and unnecessarily abstract matters.
For metaphysics to remain alive, it must endeavor to deal with issues that are of
significant importance to humans and society at large.
Tutor Marked Assignment
What is the relevance of metaphysics?
References and Further Reading
Hamlyn, D. W. (1995). Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aja, E. (1996). What is Philosophy? An African Inquiry. Enugu: Donze Family
Circle Publication.
13
MODULE 2: SYSTEMS OF METAPHYSICS
INTRODUCTION
This module sets out to examine the main systems of metaphysics highlighted in
the course description. It seeks to expose the overarching thematic of the various
systems of metaphysics, identify their main proponents, historical developments
and the various inflections that these systems now take in contemporary thought.
There are numerous systems of metaphysics but our focus however is limited to the
assessment and evaluation of four namely; universalism, nominalism, realism and
idealism. These systems and theories seek to simply describe the nature of what
there is in reality or how we can characterise the basic nature of the world in which
we live. The systems of metaphysics to be examined in this present module
include: Realism, Idealism, nominalism and Universalism. We seek to have a
general broad characterization of the main themes of Realism, Idealism,
Nominalism and Universalism. Each of the four systems of metaphysics will be
examined per study unit in order to make for thorough assessment of their features
and variants. At the end of the module students should be able to tell an untrained
inquirer the basic ideas and subject matter of the themes we shall consider under
this module as study units. Part of the concern also is to endeavor to demonstrate
the basic differences there are and how these systems relate in some ways.
Therefore for this module, four study units will constitute the significant major
moments for our reflections.
Unit I: Realism
Unit II: Idealism
Unit III: Nominalism
Unit IV: Universalism
14
Unit I: Realism
This study unit discusses realism as one of the popular metaphysical systems in the
history of metaphysics. It seeks to highlight the various types or variants of realism
and the various proponents of these various forms that it has assumed.
1.0 Introduction
This study unit presents students with what realism means; that is, what it means to
say that something is real. It examines the metaphysical system of realism. It seeks
to outline and describe the main current of this system by identifying the various
forms or variants of the system, the main proponents and the historical
development of realism as a metaphysical system.
2.0 Learning Objectives
This unit will help students to:
1. Underpin what realism as a metaphysical system is.
2. Understand the historical development of realism
3. Know the various variants or types of realism and of course their
proponents
3.0 Main Content
What is Realism?
A proper understanding of realism as a metaphysical system or doctrine requires a
clear clarification of the terms real and reality. The term real means something that
exists as a fact; it is actual rather than imaginary, fantasy or ideal. It refers to things
or events that exist in their own right as opposed to that which is imaginary,
fictitious or ideal. Reality on the other hand is therefore the state or quality of
being real or actual existence in contrast to what is merely apparent or just
appearance.
Realism as a metaphysical system signifies the assertion of the existence of a
reality independently of our thoughts or beliefs about it. It holds that our minds or
15
what we think about a reality cannot change it. The reality should be accepted and
confronted as it is. It is therefore a practical understanding and acceptance of the
actual nature of the world, rather than an idealized or romantic outlook of it,
(Kabuk 2017: 77). Realism (after the Latin word for “thing”) is the position
defended by realists who “affirm the existence of special things (the universals)
that exist over and above the world of particular things”.
There are different types of realism; rational realism and natural/scientific realism.
Rational realism is further divided into classical realism and scholasticism. The
classical realists base their ideas on the thoughts of Aristotle who is believed to be
the founder of realism as a reaction and rejection of the transcendental world of
ideas created in the philosophy of his tutor, Plato. In Aristotle, the material world is
not only real but does contain the entirety of all that there is to know composed of
matter and form. The scholastics version, on the other hand, is based on the
medieval Christian thinkers. Both versions of realism admit that material world is
real as it exists outside the minds of those who observe it. The proponents maintain
that the rational universe of the sensible objects and their orderliness are the
creative act of the supreme intelligible being (God).
The second version of realism is the natural or scientific realism. The rise of this
philosophy was witnessed during the renaissance era where scholars sought for the
supremacy of science over other disciplines in answering basic enigmatic
questions. The rise of science in Continental Europe which swept almost all areas
of enquiries changed the societal orientation throughout the continent and impacted
the emerging world. The proponents of this form of realism include; Francis
Bacon, John Locke, David Hume, John S.Mill, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand
Russell, (Kabuk 2017: 78) just to name a few.
This version posits that philosophy seeks to intimate the rigour and objectivity of
science since the world around us, and all that there is, are real. It is the task of
16
science to investigate its nature or properties. Hence, natural or scientific realists
are found to be skeptical of all forms of idealism but are seen to be experimental in
nature.
4.0 Conclusion
Realism and its various forms were highlighted in this study unit. Realism opposes
idealism in defense of the view that various objects in the world of our experience
or in the world generally are real and actual. These real or actual existents are
perceived by the senses whether the mind reports of them or not. In other words,
objects exist independently of the mind.
5.0 Summary
A succinct presentation of realism as a metaphysical system was achieved in the
study unit. It mentioned the two versions of realism; the rational and the scientific
forms of realism; it also identified and historicized the views and proponents of the
various versions of realism. It also underscores the fact that in spite of the
divergences or differences among the various views held by the proponents of the
different forms or versions of realism, there is a common tenet that real and
objective nature of the natural world, objects or things, exists independently of the
human mind. In other words, these things or realities are extra-mental realities,
different from the mind that perceives or thinks about them, (Aja 2015: 129).
Realism as presented is the view that there is a reality independent of the mind and
independent of conscious beings. The impetus towards realism comes in turn from
the commonsense reason that there is surely more to what exists than what is
simply within our minds.
17
Realism is diametrically opposed to idealism: discuss.
7.0 References and Further Reading
Aja, E. (2015). What is Philosophy? An African Inquiry. Enugu: Donze Press.
Kabuk, V.S. (2017). A Fundamental Approach to Philosophy of Education. Port
Unit II: Idealism

This study unit discusses Idealism as one of the popular metaphysical systems in
the history of metaphysics. It seeks to highlight the various types or variants of
idealism and the various proponents of these various forms that it has assumed.
1.0 Introduction
This study unit examines idealism as one of the main metaphysical systems. It
seeks to outline and describe the basic tenet of this system by identifying the
various forms or variants of the system, the main proponents and the historical
development of idealism.
2.0 Objectives
This study unit has the following learning outcomes for students:
a. To understand the basic tenets of idealism
b. To know the various strands of the system
c. To understand the historical development of the system.
3.0 Main Content
The Meaning of Idealism
The word is a derivative of the noun ‘ideal’, which suggests freedom from
inflections of the material world or unreality of what depends simply on the mind
(Kabuk 2017: 68). Idealism implies that reality is actually dependent on the mind
rather than on something that exists independently of the mind. In other words, the
ideas, and thoughts constitute the essence or fundamental nature of all realities.
Idealism therefore is the system of thought or doctrine that emphasizes mind, spirit
or the soul as ultimate realities. The material world is only a manifestation of a
reflection of what is in the mind or the spirit. In this case, we cannot truly know
anything for certain about whatever external world may exist; all we can know are
18
the mental constructs created by our minds, which we can then attribute to an
external world.
Idealism involves the thesis that all we can be aware of (and therefore all that what
we are aware of can consist in) is such representations or ideas. In the 17th/18th
century usage of the term, ‘idea’ does not mean merely ‘concept’ but any mental
item which is, so to speak, of something. It is worth noting also that Plato’s so-
called idealism is quite different thing from the idealism during the era referred to
above; it is a theory to the effect that sensible things, the objects of perception, are
to be explained by reference to ideas/forms, the ideal entities postulated by Plato.
Idealism is contrasted primarily with realism which holds that reality is
independent of the mind. However, views are considered idealists’ when they hold
that reality is outside the mind but loosely dependent on the mind for their
consciousness, (Kabuk 69). Narrower versions of idealism claim that our
understanding of reality reflects the workings of our minds first and foremost – that
the properties of objects have no standing independent of the minds perceiving
them. Extreme versions of idealism deny that any world at all exists outside of our
minds. Theistic form of idealism limits reality to the mind of God. Other forms of
idealism include Plato’s, epistemological, subjective, objective, transcendental and
absolute idealism. Major idealists include Plato, Gottfried W. Leibniz, G.W.F.
Hegel, I. Kant, G. Berkeley, etc.
Views of Some Selected Idealists
The origin of idealism is attributed to the works of Plato who first projected the
idea of the world of forms as different from the world of the senses. According to
Plato, the material world and other material realities are mere reflections of the
ideal world in the world of forms. The sensual or material world is transient,
19
imperfect, corruptible, and mutable while the world of forms is incorporeal,
incorruptible, immutable, permanent and perfect.
In the medieval period, following St. Augustine the world of God is the ideal
world. For him, it is the soul rather than the mind that has knowledge and access of
the truth given its closest nature to God from whom it emanates. In the modern era,
Descartes argues that all ideas have no separate existence outside the perfect being
who is the foundation and object of thought. For Berkeley, the fundamental
principle of all of realities is perception as contained in his famous dictum, “esse
est percepi” to mean “to be is to be perceived”. This means that reality or existence
depends fundamentally on its perception by the mind. It was Hegel who introduced
his idea of dialectical idealism wherein the absolute spirit advances itself towards
perfection by undergoing through a series of thesis and its antithesis to form a
synthesis constantly evolving progressively in view of perfection, (Madsen
2009:115).
4.0 Conclusion
The reflective exercise has defined idealism as a metaphysical system that stresses
the supremacy or superiority of the mind or idea over matter. It emphasizes that
reality is mental rather than material; spiritual rather than physical. For the
idealists, therefore, the entire existence or reality exists only as ideas in the
universal mind and the particular mind (human mind) interpreted as part of the
universal mind.
5.0 Summary
The study unit has examined idealism as a metaphysical system in
contradistinction to realism. Idealism as presented rejects the view that material
existence can be independent of the mind by defending the view point that existing
reality is simply ideas or the mind that perceives it. The study unit also highlighted
20
the various versions of idealism and reechoed some of the particular emphasis
made by some philosophers in the course of the history of philosophy.
What is the basic thrust of idealism?
Kabuk, V. S. (2017). A Fundamental Approach to Philosophy of Education. Port
Madsen, P. (2009). 101 Great Philosophers: Makers of Modern Thought. London:
Continuum International Publishing Co.
Unit 3: Nominalism
This study units seeks to examine what the fundamental thrust of nominalism is
and to highlight the contributions of various philosophers on building the
metaphysical system to what it is today and the various forms or types of
nominalism that there are.
1.0 Introduction
This study unit examines the metaphysical system of nominalism. It seeks to
outline and describe the main current of this system by identifying the various
development of the system.
2.0 Objectives
The objectives of the study include the following:
a. Help the student to understand the basic ideas at the centre of nominalism.
b. Facilitate an appreciation of the historical development of the system
c. Know the various forms that the system has taken.
3.0 Main Content
What Nominalism Means?
Nominalism is the rejection of universals. It is also the rejection of abstract objects
in another equally important sense. This is the view that there is nothing in the
universe except particulars; particulars are all we can perceive, and particulars are
all that there are, Aja (141). In the consideration of the ancient problem of
21
universals as per the place of properties we very often talk about or refer to when
we describe objects of our experience or make normative assessments; two usually
opposing schools of thought are immediately evident; realism and nominalism.
Realism (after the Latin word for “thing”) is the position defended by realists who
“affirm the existence of special things (the universals) that exist over and above the
world of particular things”. Their opponents are called the nominalists (after the
Latin word for name). While the realists believe that the universals, such as
property of being a horse or the property of being a water molecule, are real things
needed to ground or explain in any ultimate way the obvious similarity of
particular horses or particular water molecules to another. The universals are
somehow shared by or present in those particular things, nominalists, in contrast,
deny that we need any such metaphysical explanation of similarity: the particular
things themselves suffice to explain when we use common names (like “”horse”
or “water molecule”) as we do”, (Koons&Pickavance 2015: 10). Other examples of
these abstract objects or entities include; numbers, properties, possible world, and
propositions.
Two versions of nominalism are popular in the literatures; one that denies or
rejects universals and the second version is one that rejects abstract objects. The
implication of this distinction is that there is a difference between universals and
abstract terms. Universals can have particular objects instantiating them within
space and time whereas abstract notions are atemporal and aspatial or simply they
do not have spatial or temporal instantiations. Examples of philosophers in the
course of history belong to one version of nominalism or the other. David
Armstrong believed in universals but that everything that exist do so within space
and time and so can be said to be a nominalist in the sense of denial or rejection of
abstract entities. W.V.O. Quine, on the other hard, accepts sets or classes and
accepts abstract entities but reject universals and can be said to be a nominalist in
22
his rejection of universals.
4.0 Conclusion
This study unit has undertaken the exposition of what nominalism means. It
considered nominalism in its two senses as fundamentally as an anti-realist school
of thought ;( a). as the rejection of universals, and (b) the rejection of abstract
objects. Both senses imply that for nominalism as metaphysical system only
concrete things or particular objects exist.
5.0 Summary
The metaphysical system of nominalism though sounding ambiguous sometimes
simply has been described and exposed in this study unit. The unit began with
exposition of what nominalism means. Two senses of the term meaning to reject
the reality of abstract objects and the rejection of universals were identified as key
in our understanding of what the term means. The notion does not only stop at
rejecting the realities of both universals and abstract objects but defend the view
that only particular objects exist. From these two senses, the unit drew and gave
examples of what universals are as different from abstract objects. The former can
be instantiated by particular objects whereas the latter do not have temporal or
spatial relevant existence. An example of the latter is numbers.
What is nominalism in simple terms?
Koons, R. C. & Pickavance, T. H. (2015). Metaphysics: the Fundamentals.
Chichester: WILEY Blackwell Publications.
23
Unit 4: Universalism
This study unit discusses universalism as one of the popular metaphysical systems
in the history of metaphysics. It seeks to highlight the various types or variants of
universalism and the various proponents of these various forms that it has assumed.
1.0 Introduction
This study unit examines universalism as a system of metaphysics. It seeks to
outline and describe the main current of universalism by identifying the various
development of universalism.
2.0 Objectives
The objectives of this study unit will achieve the following for the students in
terms of:
a. Enable the student to have a grip of the main current of the system
b. Facilitate an appreciation of the historical development of universalism
c. Help student to understand the various trends that are characteristic of
systems in metaphysics.
3.0 Main Content
What is the exact nature of universals is a problem at the heart of universals and
universalism. It is the case that there are concepts and ideas we use and have come
to identify in our daily usage that speaks to this problem but we hardly pay close
attention to them. For example, we very often describe certain actions to be good
actions or wrong actions or describe certain things in terms of their shape and
colour or size or quality in terms of these objects instantiating these so called
qualities without deeply paying attention to where these qualities we use or say of
these objects really inhere or exist. Or to say it differently, whether they exist in
these objects or whether their modes of existence is such that they are outside of
these objects that instantiate them. So for example, we describe a ball as round as
far as the shape is concerned with colour red as far as the colour in concerned. The
question and the problem then becomes whether the roundness or redness exist
24
outside of the ball that is so described. According to Omoregbe (11), such things as
beauty, justice, whiteness, goodness, humanity, etc are universals. They are
universal concepts, but they are not just ideas in the mind. We recognize them in
things that exhibit them, and this means that they are real though they are not
physical. They are realities, though not tangible realities. It appears then that there
is more top reality than what is utterly physical and in fact tangible. In western
philosophical tradition, Socrates was the first to identify the universals and insisted
upon the distinction between the things that exhibit them and the universals so
exhibited by these particular things or acts. For example, when Socrates asked his
contemporaries to define justice, and they went ahead to give examples of
instances of just acts, Socrates would tell them they had not answered his questions
as he was not asking for instances of just acts but justice itself. Given the
distinction between just act and justice itself, it seems Socrates was right. So if this
this case, then where does it exist or how does it exist brings to the fore the
problem of universals. In the work, Isagoge, a commentary on the work of
Porphyry Boethius asked whether universals were realities outside the mind or
exclusively simply ideas in the mind. Are they real entities which could be found
anywhere apart from the individual objects that manifests them? (Omoregbe 12).
Two variants of realism have emerged in the context of the history of metaphysics
especially within the context of the medieval period to attempt for the nature of the
existence of universals. These two schools of thoughts or variants are exaggerated
or ultra-realist school and the moderate realist variant. While the former; that is,
the ultra-realist variant argue that universals are real entities that exist somewhere
25
else apart from the particular objects that instantiate them. So the objects that
instantiate them only participate in the nature of the universals. Proponents of this
school of realism include the following; St. Anselm, John Scotus of Eriugena,
Remigius of Auxerre, and William of Champeaux. The second variant is the
moderate realist school that is defended by thinkers such as Boethius, John of
Salisbury, Albelad, and Thomas Aquinas. These scholars argue that universals
exist in individual objects and are extracted from them by the mind. In the modern
era and in fact still held by the empiricist tradition today, Berkeley and Hume deny
the reality of the universals. In other words, they deny the reality of the universal
and argue that only ideas of particular things exist, Omoregbe (12).
Another school of thought on the nature of universals is nominalism, proposed by
William of Ockham. This view holds that universals or general names are mere
labels. In fact, the word nominalism comes from the Latin word, nomina, meaning
name. For William of Ockham, universal essences are concepts in the mind.
Hence, the form of nominalism developed in his thought system is regarded as
conceptualism. So, universal essences are concepts caused in our minds when we
perceive real similarities among things in the world.
4.0 Conclusion
This study unit examined the nature of the problem of universals. The various
schools of thought on universalism were explored. The realist account of the nature
and place of the universals in relation to the particular objects that instantiate them.
While it notes that the universals as entities can be distinguished from the objects
that instantiate them, the issue of whether they; that is, the universals really exist
remains quite problematic which is at the heart of the nominalism alternative
defended by William of Ockham for example. There are different schools of
thoughts that attempts to account for the nature of the universals and how they
exist in relation to particular objects that instantiate them.
26
5.0 Summary
This study unit shows that universals are real and these universals can be
distinguished from the particular objects or acts that instantiate them. Various
schools of thought are noted to have made attempts to account for the nature of the
existence of the universals. For example, three schools emerged in the medieval
period of philosophy. These three schools of thought are ultra or exaggerated
realism, moderate realism and nominalism proposed by William of Ockham. In the
modern era of philosophy and still held within the empiricist tradition is the claim
that universals do not exist outside of the particular objects or acts in which they
inhere or are objectified.
Attempt to account for the nature and problem of existence of universals?
Omoregbe, J. (1996). Metaphysics without Tears: A systematic and historical
Study. Lagos: Joja educational Research and Publishers Limited.
Unah. J. I. (2010). Metaphysics. Lagos: University of Lagos University Press.
Egbeke, A. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Publications
MODULE 3: CONCEPTS OF NATURE, REALITY AND THOUGHT.

For our module three, the focus will be the exposition of the concepts of nature,
reality and thought. As very broad concepts the focus is to ensure students are
introduced and exposed to the various ways in which these concepts are theorized
and understood through the various significant moments in the history of
metaphysics.
Unit 1: The Concepts of Nature, Reality and Thought
1.0 Introduction
In the history of philosophy, what constitutes nature, reality and the possibility of
thought about these themes have been central to philosophers from the ancient era
through to the contemporary times. In this study unit, the focus is to simply
highlight some of the characterizations of what these scholars through history think
27
of nature, reality and thought.
2.0 Objectives
The objectives of the study include to;
a. Highlight what the various scholars through history think and say of nature,
reality and the possibility of thought.
b. Help students have an overview of the thinking of philosophical forebears on
these themes.
c. Stimulate in students the interest to rethink these ideas in their own ways at
the same time paying critical attention to the history of these discourses.
3.0 Main Content
What is reality? What constitutes nature? What is the nature of thought? These are
key questions at the centre of the philosophical storehouse of the contributions of
various forebears in the course of the history of metaphysics and of course
philosophy. While many observed that change was a fundamental nature of reality,
in other words, all around them they observed things constantly undergoing
changes, certain aspects that underlies nature was not itself experiencing the same
constant changes which was of course of interest to the many who paid attention
and made effort to account for the nature of the universe; that is, the world around
them, nature or reality and whether it was possible to have knowledge of the basic
stuff of the nature or the world around them.
During the pre-Socratic era, many of these thinkers who raised questions and
excited about their experiences came to the conclusion that nature or reality was
real and unchanging. In the views of some this reality was one and appears in
many ways or forms at different times. So for example, for Thales, this reality was
water. For Anaximander it was the apeiron; the boundless while for Anaximenes, it
was air. For Heraclitus and Parmenides, it was change and constant flux for the
former and then being which is permanent and unchanging for the latter. With
respect to these characterizations the question then became what and how do we
28
account for the apparent change we experience all around the world. For
Parmenides and even in Plato as well (in his theory of the world of forms/ideas),
the world of ordinary life and experience is not being or reality and thus, unreal. It
is mere appearance and illusion to think it is real. For access to these realms are
divided into two; that of opinion or the senses through which we experience and
encounter change and what appears to us to be undergoing change in and around
the world whereas through the way or power of reason, we can have access to the
world that is real and unchanging. And so, against this backdrop the distinction
between valid logical reasoning and experience is foregrounded and founded. On
the part of Aristotle there was a total rejection of the other world kind of view in
Plato’s metaphysics. What is real accordingly is not present in another world
outside of the experiences and that the changing nature of the visible world must
be a basic feature of nature. When we are able to discover what the real and basic
constituents that make up the natural world then we can understand and account for
the changing natural world.
According to Aja (21) every natural object is always undergoing change at the
same time something remains the same in that object that undergoes changes. For
him therefore, there are four causes which are key for us to understand and
ascertain what really changes and yet able to still be itself. The material cause –
what is it that changes? The efficient cause – what makes it change, what produces
the alteration? The formal cause – what does it change to, what new form does it
take or acquire? And finally, the final cause – for what purpose or reason does it
change and in view of what goal does it change? The building blocks for
understanding the Aristotelian system are two; form and matter constitutively
make up objects in nature imbued with the potentials to become actualities in view
of certain ends in view. All objects in the natural world apart from the Unmoved
Mover as Aristotle called it is always undergoing change (i.e. changing its form to
29
take on another form) and yet something remaining unchanging or permanent
about it (matter) within the dynamics of potentialities turning into actualities in
view of achieving the status of pure form (the teleological goal or final end) which
it never really attains.
The medieval thinkers took on this system and interpreted the Unmoved Mover to
be God reflective of various religious traditions. In the modern era, philosophers
had various views on reality, nature and thought. Descartes for example postulated
three substances – God, mind and matter and ended up with a rather religious or
theological image of nature that in fact threatened to weaken the two other forms
or substances of mind and body in explaining the nature of reality. In response to
the Cartesian metaphysical system, Hobbes agreed that the physical world is real
and then worked out a thorough going mechanistic or materialistic system that did
away with anything spiritual or religious. In fact, the mental world as pictured in
the Cartesian world is in fact part and parcel of the material world within the
Hobbesian metaphysical characterization of the nature of reality. The real world is
composed of bodies. A body is that which having no dependence upon our thought
is coincident or coextended with some part of space. Nature or reality therefore
was conceived as purely matter in motion and therefore there appears to be no
difficulty in explaining the connection between what we think about and what is
happening outside of us. On the part of Spinoza, reality is simply composed of one
substance and its modifications which he called God or Nature with infinite
number of attributes. This system is called Monism. It is only by two means that
we know these attributes and these are: thought and extension.
Everything else that exists is just the extension or the mode of one or two of either
of the two known attributes by which we know of this only one substance that exist
and necessarily exists, which of course, is God or Nature. This notion of God in the
metaphysical system of Spinoza is entirely different from the Christian idea of God
30
given how Spinoza went on to characterize this God as impersonal, lacking in any
ability to perform miracle and in fact, a natural being to be known and loved more
through the study of physics and mathematics than through traditional religious
practices as preached in Christianity, (Aja 36). In Hegel, we find another intriguing
attempt whereby reality or everything that exists in nature can be understood only
in terms of the absolute or objective mind which is in the process of evolution
throughout the history of the world. Though a complicated system the absolute or
the objective mind through a process of dialectics that involves a thesis and
antithesis to form a synthesis that in turn undergoes the same process of dialectics
again until the absolute mind is able to attain perfect rationality and complete or
total self realization – the stage when complete thought and complete being will be
one and the same thing.
4.0 Conclusion
The foregoing study unit attempted an examination of the concepts of nature,
reality and thought using the tool of history. It broadly itemized some of the
thinking and characterization of what these concepts and themes mean by
identifying philosophers who in the course of history made contributions to our
understanding of these terms and concepts. It began by examining the pre-Socratic
thinkers and their views and thoughts on nature and reality in terms of what
fundamentally constitutes them through to the modern period of philosophy.
5.0 Summary
The views and thoughts of some metaphysicians from the classical era through the
medieval to the modern period of philosophy were identified and discussed. While
the thoughts of thinkers in the Ancient period provided useful tools for a greater
appreciation of our experiences of nature and what there is in nature generally,
their thoughts and theories were taken over and reshaped or redressed to meet the
religious flair of the thinking during the medieval period. These thoughts were
further advanced by modern philosophers to the extent that quite a number of other
31
problems emerged in the various systems that were defended by these scholars
which have remained problematic ever since and these will continue to inspire
further reflections for contemporary thinkers even in our time.
Aja, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Press.
Onyeocha, I. M. (2009). Introfil: A First Encounter with Philosophy (Second
edition). Washington D.C.: Council for Research and Values in Philosophy.
Omoregbe, J. I. (1996). Metaphysics without Tears: A Systematic and Historical
Study. Lagos: Joja Press Ltd.
Loux, M. J. & Zimmerman, D. W. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
32
MODULE 4: THE PROBLEM OF BEING
In this section our objective is simply to explicate on the nature of the problem of
being as central to metaphysics. Our interrogation of this all important problem
will enable the students to appreciate the centrality of the nature and problem of
being. We shall therefore look at how in the course of the history of philosophy
various thinkers have tried to grapple with the problem of being and the extent to
which their various attempts succeeded or failed to account for a comprehensive
solution to the problem of being. Students will also be encouraged and challenged
to attempt providing a rational solution to this long standing problem in
metaphysics. Within Aristotle’s work, being as such or being-qua-being as part of
the central problems in metaphysics remains an exciting project for philosophers.
In fact, the interpretation of what exactly the notion of being Aristotle had in mind
while describing the possibility of the science of being reflects one of the very
nature of focus of general metaphysics as distinct from the understanding of being
of specific thing, say living things etc. the concern therefore is to examine whether
it is possible to inquire into the nature of being as such or the possibility of to be
without reference to specific kind of thing. Here the contribution of Plato provides
some insights into how to understand this concern about the possibility of having
very abstract and general ideas into the nature of specific kinds of things. Here the
idea is the Platonic discourses on the nature of forms or world of ideas, (Hamlyn
1984: 1-2).
Unit 1: On Being and Non-being: Nature, Characteristics and History
1.0 Introduction
The question of the problem of being and the nature of being is one of the most
intriguing questions in metaphysics because one of the main branches of
metaphysics; that is, ontology concerns itself with the nature of being. In fact, the
question, “What is being?” has remained one of the intractable and preeminent
concerns in the entire philosophical history right from the age of the pre-Socrates
through to this day. It is the case partly because some other important
philosophical or specifically metaphysical problems are centred on our
understanding of being and how we characterize what being is. For example, the
problem of appearance and reality is predicated on our understanding of how we
conceptualise and understand being. Is being one or many? Is being static, real,
unchanging or dynamic, unreal, and effervescent? For this module, our concern
will be an attempt to characterize what is being, contrast it with the idea of non-
33
being, present a history of the discourse and the various nuances of the discourse
on the problem of being and its nature. We shall adopt Omoregbe’s calibration for
ease and brevity.
2.0 Objectives of the study
This study unit has the following objectives:
a. To help students understand the centrality of being in metaphysics
b. To facilitate an understanding of what is being
c. To facilitate an understanding of what is non-being
d. To show the historical character of the discourse on being as a central theme
in metaphysics.
3.0 Main Content
a. Being and Non-being in the Classical Era
According to Parmenides, being is whatever is. In other words, whatever exists is
being. For him therefore, being is one, unchanging and eternal. With this
calibration of what being is therefore, it can be asked what becomes of the things
we experience around us that is constantly changing and passing. The simple
answer then to the query is to simply suggest that these things do not and cannot
constitute being since they do experience and undergo constant change, transient
and of course they are many as we do see around us and in our environment.
Central to this characterization of Parmenidean notion of being is the classic
distinction between appearance and reality. Accordingly, being is one and reality is
one and not many or transient. Thus, whatever that changes or is transient is non-
being. The human senses through which we perceive the world around us is prone
to error and capable of deceiving us, hence what we experience to undergo change
in and around us is appearance and not reality; for it is only through the powers of
reason that we can access reality which is unchanging and not transient.
The contribution of Plato to this debate is also along this same thought pattern of
Parmenides. For Plato, the things we experience and perceive around us in this
world are unreal, changing and multiple which only do reflect or imitate what are
real and unchanging that only exist in the world of Forms/Ideas accessible through
the intellect/reason. However, the ultimate form of all forms is Goodness. On the
part of Aristotle, he identified being, in fact, pure being as the object of
metaphysics; that is, being as being or being as such. Within this conceptualization
of the perfect being as the subject matter of metaphysics, metaphysics becomes the
science of pure being, theology in some sense.
b. Being in the Medieval Context
The medieval context introduced the notion of Supreme Being into the equation by
34
making the origin of the universe and created order the central themes for
philosophical reflection. In this regard therefore, Thomas Aquinas replaced the
notion of the Being as Being with God. The notion of being as used in the
medieval context divides into two: the analogical and the univocal senses. While
Being according to Aquinas is strictly used for God alone and all other created
things as being in the analogical sense, Don Scotus opined that there is just only
one sense in which we can understand and use the idea of being and it is same for
God or created beings – humans for example.
c. Being in The Modern period
In the Hegelian system of the notion of thesis and anti-thesis dialectics, being is
contrasted with non-being with becoming as the resultant synthesis. One scholar
whose attention and focus majorly dwelt on being was Martin Heidegger. In his
work, two categories of being are distinguished; being itself and individual beings.
The former being itself or being of being is the source of other beings; that is, of
individual beings and in which being itself manifests itself. Another existentialist
who took a radical turn away from any mystical or religious line of thought was
Jean-Paul Sartre for whom, being is what is. However, there are two notions; being
in itself and being for itself. Whereas the former is conscious the latter is
unconscious. The foundation of being is nothingness, for it emerges from
nothingness. Being by its very nature is merely contingent.
d. Being in the Contemporary Thinking
Being is considered anything that exists materially or immaterially and so it
remains the project and focus of ontology today to explain the nature of what there
is in reality. Much of the discussions and debates about the problem of being in
contemporary thinking therefore branches into the various special sciences today.
And so there is a significant interest shown by metaphysicians in the works of
cosmologists, astrophysicists and other related sciences seeking to understand and
explain the nature of all that there is in existence.
4.0 Conclusion
This study unit has outlined the debates and views on the nature and problem of
being in metaphysics. It noted that being is the subject matter of ontology. Being in
this context is in the most general and universal sense of it. Hence, Ontology as the
study of being as being, of first principles and causes of the divine. Unlike other
disciplines that concern themselves with parts, the concern of ontology as
metaphysics is about absolutely everything, not in every details but only those
matters which all things share.
5.0 Summary
The problem of being is central in metaphysics. In fact, the special concern of
35
ontology but of general interest no doubt to many areas of study in the
contemporary era to account for the nature of what there is; materially or
immaterially which has continued to attend to the interests of those in metaphysics
as well as other special sciences. We have examined the historical moments from
the classical era, medieval period, modern periods to this day how this central
theme and problem in philosophy continue to intrigue philosophers and ordinary
people on what the nature of being and non being is.
What is being? What are the historical moments in the discussion on the problem
of being and how did various key figures in these various periods define being?
Omoregbe, J. (1996). Metaphysics Without Tears: a Systematic and Historical
Study. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited.
Aja, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Press.
edition). Washington D.C.: Council for Research and Values in Philosophy.
Module 5: The Concept of God and Human Nature (Human Person and Self-
Identity)
At the end of the study of this module students should be able to conceptualise and
discuss the arguments for and against the existence of God. Also students should
be able to discuss the metaphysical character of human nature which sets it apart
from the other aspects of nature. Hence, for this module made of three units; we
will examine the primacy of the God question in metaphysics. The concepts and
nature of the problem of mind, body and self-identity broadly construed. We do not
pretend to exhaustively tease out all of the details on the subject matter of
philosophy of religion and philosophy of mind as sub-fields in philosophy for that
matter. None the less, it is key to broach on these themes and related discourses we
encounter not only in metaphysics but in all other aspects of philosophy which of
course do go to show how interconnected these topics and problems are in
philosophy. What are the arguments for and against God’s existence? What is the
human person? What is the nature of human nature? How different is the human
person from other animals? How does the human person self-identify? Is the
36
human nature fundamentally the same across cultures and societies? What are its
qualities or properties, if there is any at all? Is the human person just a bundle or
exclusively mere collection of physical/material or biological properties? Are there
supra-physical qualities associated with only the human person? These are some of
the questions crucial to our understanding of the nature of the human person and
the place of the human person in the world in which the human person lives. It is
against this backdrop that we shall endeavor to examine the concepts of human
nature, the mind-body problem while examining the various theories associated
with them, albeit brief.
Unit 1: The God Question in Metaphysics
The central theme of the present unit is God. The question of the nature of God is
an important one in philosophy. What type of reality is God? Is he a concrete or
historical or abstract being? In this unit the arguments rather than what are
generally termed proofs will be explored. Also, a few counter arguments that seek
to undermine the arguments for God’s existence will also be highlighted as
evaluations of the arguments for God’s existence.
1.0 Introduction
The focus here is to expose the arguments for and against God’s existence. The
essence of the present unit therefore is to further establish the centrality of God as
37
an important aspect of metaphysical undertaking not only in history but even in the
contemporary time. In fact, as it will be made clear shortly, the God question is
also crucial for the broad context within which various systems and theories
(religious and non-religious) attempt to explain the origin, meaning and nature of
the universe. A classic representation of this is the seemingly unending debate
between creationists and evolutionary thinkers on the origin of the unievrse.
2.0 Objectives of the Study
For the students, the following are the objectives of the study:
a. To understand the ubiquitous nature of the God question in metaphysics.
b. To appreciate the strength and weaknesses of the various arguments for and
against God’s existence
c. To be able to attempt some personal and profound reflection on this all
important theme and question.
d. To estimate the theoretical as well as practical implications of these
discourses. For example, how to grapple with the presence of evil in a world
created by a supremely good and all powerful God.
3.0 Main Content
The theme “God” is a ubiquitous one within and outside metaphysics. In the
history of philosophical thinking, many scholars down the ages have also attended
to this theme. In terms of the questions regarding the existence of the being of
God; there are numerous claims and counter claims which we may not
exhaustively be able to handle in this present unit. Thus, the attempt here seeks to
provide general and broad picture that introduces students to the various nuances
that there are on this topic. This is because the concern here is the metaphysical
relevance of the concept as God is also central in the discipline of theology and the
various religions there are. In a sense one can broadly divide the various positions
into three groups; the first group is made up of those who argue and affirm God’s
existence generally termed “Theism”. Those who defend this view are called
theists. The second group argues against the existence of God and so largely denies
God’s existence, generally termed “Atheism”. Those who hold this view are called
atheists. The third group is rather in between as they are rather indifferent and hold
the view that we cannot know whether or not God exists. The last group is often
regarded as “Agnosticism”. Those who hold this view are called agnostics.
The question however remains if the concept God can really be defined at all.
Writing on this subject, Iroegbu (85) reports that God is understood as “a supreme
personal being – distinct from the world and creator of the world”. This was the
point of departure of the 1948 debate between Bertrand Russell and Fr. Fredrick
Copleston on U.S. Television on the theme of the existence of God. In various
38
cultures and religious worldviews, God is variously defined or characterized with
attributes and these representations or descriptions can be found in a number of
different stages. However, the most important attributes of the theistic concept of
God are his transcendence and personality, Onyeocha (305-306).
There are two main sources of the knowledge of God: revealed theology or divine
revelation; that is, the Holy Books for instance and natural reason or intellect.
While the former constitutes theology the latter is natural theology or theodicy.
This is key in the context of the intractable problem of evil or suffering in the
world.
Arguments for the Existence of God
According to Onyeocha (308) the arguments for God’s existence can be broadly
grouped under two types; namely, a posteriori and a priori arguments. A posteriori
arguments are based on experience while a priori are based on reason and
independent of experience. The cosmological and teleological arguments fall under
the a posteriori form while the ontological and moral arguments fall under the a
priori form. I will now try to elucidate and provide brief details of the formulations
of these arguments.
The Cosmological arguments: though first developed by Aristotle, a pagan
philosopher during the classical period but were later christianised by Thomas
Aquinas in the Medieval era. They are the five ways Aquinas argues for the
existence of God.
1. From Motion: the observation of the universe there is a chain of motions.
Whatever that is in motion was moved by something else that precedes it. To
void infinite regress, it is taken for granted that there is a first mover, an
unmoved mover who is in itself unmoved but responsible for the movement
of every other thing in motion. This first unmoved mover is said to be God.
2. From Efficient Cause: whatever is cause is caused by another. Nothing can
be an efficient cause of itself, otherwise it would be prior to itself which is
impossible. For the thing which causes another must exist before the caused
in order to cause it, Iroegbu 97. Again, to avoid infinite regress, the first
efficient cause which is responsible for all other causes but itself uncaused is
conceived as God.
3. From Contingent to Necessary Being: there is ephemerality that characterize
the beings of our experience in the world. A being is here today and
tomorrow the being is no more. In other words, things come and they go out
of existence or die as the cause may be. Thus, the quality of existence of
such beings is contingent; they are not necessary as they can stop existing.
What accounts for the existence of things; i.e. contingent beings must itself
39
be unaffected by contingency of existence, hence, necessary being must
exist to give existence to all other realities that only have possible or
contingent existence. The being that exists necessarily is conceived as God.
4. Degrees of Perfection: in the universe we observe that one thing is better
than another, and later we find another thing better than the first one. If we
were to trace these grades of perfection we would eventually arrive at the
most perfect being, the ultimate source of perfection. The most perfect being
is God, Omoregbe 51.
5. Order and Harmony: another term for this argument is that of design or
teleological argument. In the universe, there is apparent order and purpose
by which events, seasons, and other phenomena occur or the mechanisms
through which organisms behave in a patterned and arranged fashion. This
sort of order and careful arrangement cannot just be as a result of the activity
of chance but a product and manifestation of an intelligent, careful planner
who programmed the universe to operate the way it does. This teleological
argument according to William Palley is akin to the working of the wall
clock which works in an orderly fashion. Though we do not physically see
the intelligent designer at work, deductively, we must conclude that the
intelligent designer exists. How else could one account for the intelligent,
ordered and perfective functions present in the universe? An intelligent
designer responsible for the order and harmony in the universe Aquinas
regards as God.
The Ontological Model of Argument for God’s Existence
Another model of argument for God’s existence is the ontological argument
defended by Rene Descartes and St. Anselm of Canterbury. The thrust of the
ontological argument is very meaning and implication of the concept God.
According to Iroegbu (99), the ontological model goes outside of experience and
seeks to show the reality of God from our very understanding of what God is by
definition, nature and conception. By explicative logical coherence, it shows that
we cannot existentially deny what we essentially affirm by saying that God is the
greatest reality, the perfect being, non-contradictory absolute. For St. Anselm, God
is the greatest object possible in thought that exists in reality as well if not God
cannot be said to be the greatest conceivable being. In this formulation, there
seems to be a logical jump from the very idea of God to the reality of God. Does it
then follow that for everything one is able to conceive of comes into existence or
does exists? For example, if I can conceive a flying horse or unicorn does not make
these things to exist in reality. As a result of this kind of challenge, Descartes
appeals to mathematics and uses the concept of a triangle to escape the logical
40
jump in St. Anselm’s formulation. Accordingly, “we all conceive of God as an
absolutely perfect being. If he is perfect, he cannot lack one of the attributes of
perfection, that of existence. If he did not exist, he would not be perfect. To avoid
contradiction, since he is perfect, he necessarily exists”, therefore, God exists,
(Iroegbu 100).
Argument from Morality
According to Immanuel Kant, morality presupposes the existence of God. “Human
moral experience witnesses a consciousness of moral duty. Duty is an internal
imperative of doing good and avoiding evil. This is a natural datum founded on an
internal logic of a moral law giver in human’s interior self. It is a dictate of
practical reason characterized by duties and responsibilities for the good of all”,
(Iroegbu 94). For morality only makes sense if there is a God who not only
impresses the moral law on the consciousness of all humans but also rewards each
accordingly. Through this moral law therefore God is able to regulate and control
the behavior of humans. The obvious challenge is there are those who do not
believe in God yet follow strictly the moral law. This makes it possible to then
consider the possibility that belief in God or religious affiliation is not a necessary
condition for any adherence to moral duty though it may enhance it.
Arguments Against God’s Existence
Many scholars deny the existence for God for various grounds. One of the most
prominent figures is Friedrich Nietzsche who is popularly known to have said that
God is dead. This means that for him, God was or existed but is no more! Within
his thought system, man now has assumed the place of God and poised to become
the super –power. David Hume is another who argues against God’s existence
given the radicalization of empiricism that he championed. Others include thinkers
who belong to Logical positivism who denied God and in fact all other
41
metaphysical reality since they fail to satisfy the criterion of meaning or
verification set by them.
One other classic argument against God’s existence is the claim that God is hidden
otherwise termed, divine hiddeness. It is a view formulated along the line that God
has failed to present itself and openly be scrutinized in order to prove its existence
and disprove the claims of the skeptics or atheists. For God’s existence is by no
means a sufficiently clear aspect of reality. The various arguments of non-beliefs
are in fact proves or evidence for the non existence of God.
It is important to point that beyond some of the few points above, there are counter
arguments for each of the five ways of Aquinas discussed in the foregoing. For
example, as criticism of the argument from order and harmony that underlie the
universe, it is argued that chaos is also very much present in the universe.
Earthquakes, floods, and natural disasters or physical evils that cause suffering and
pain cannot be said to be wholly accounted for in any persuasive and convincing
way in that order and harmony model. Added to this is the view that the argument
from degrees perfection does not demonstrate that all perfections are ultimately
embodied in only one being as the only source of all perfections.
Further Notes on some of Important Concepts related to theme of God.
It is worth pointing briefly are some terms that are associated with theistic
thinking. Some of these terms have been defined by Iroegbu (90) and they include;
pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, deism and fideism amongst
others.
1. Pantheism is associated with Baruch Spinoza who identified God with
nature. Thus, natural things are expressions of divine being and activity.
Hence, the classic remark of his, God or Nature.
2. Monotheism is the belief in one and indivisible God.
3. Polytheism is the idea that there are more than one God; some sort of
pluralistic notion of God that make God more than one.
4. Panentheism is a species of pantheism, accepts God’s existence, but relates
him reciprocally to creatures. Everything is hooked in God and God is
hooked on everything. Proponents of this include; F. Kranse and Alfred
North Whitehead.
5. Deism is the view that God exists but he has no more sustaining influence
nor does he again care for what is happening to the world he originally
created.
6. Fideism is the view that God exists and does intervene in history and the
truths of the Christian religion are acceptable only by faith and not reason.
42
4.0 Summary
The concept of God was the central concern of the unit. The unit examined the
centrality of the God question in metaphysics. It examined the arguments for the
existence of God and some few arguments against the existence of God. It broadly
divided the arguments into the a porteriori model (made up of the cosmological
and teleological arguments) and the a priori model (made up of the ontological and
moral arguments for God’s existence) of argument for God’s existence. The unit
also highlighted some of the weaknesses of some of the cosmological arguments as
promoted by St Thomas Aquinas. The weakness of the teleological argument was
also highlighted. The unit also mentioned some of the thinkers and schools of
thought that argue against the existence of God. Some important topics associated
with the theme of God were also defined following Iroegbu’s characterization.
5.0 Conclusion
The unit examined the ubiquitous concept of God in metaphysics. It presented the
arguments for and against the existence of God as contained in the literatures.
Particularly the unit examined the cosmological arguments, the teleological, and
the ontological and moral arguments for the existence of God. Some arguments
against the existence of God were also discussed. Some major concepts were then
further clarified as a way of improving the understanding some philosophical
jargons associated with the theme of God.
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignments
Outline the various models of arguments for the existence of God
What are some of the arguments against God’s existence?
Define the following terms: pantheism, panentheism, deism, fideism, monotheism
and polytheism.
Omoregbe, J. I. (1996). Metaphysics Without Tears: A Systematic and Historical
Study. Lagos: Joja Press Ltd.
edition). Washington DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Unah, J. I. (2010). Metaphysics. Lagos: University of Lagos University Press.
43
Unit 2: A Short Note on what Human Nature is
The central theme to be examined in this brief study unit is what the nature of the
human person is in metaphysics and how this has been theorised in the course of
the history of metaphysics.
1.0 Introduction
The central concern is to provide a brief insight into what human nature is and
show the historical development of the understanding of what human nature or
human person generally is in the course of the history of philosophy. In other
words, the focus it to examine what is it or what those qualities are or features that
make a being a human person.
The following are the objectives of the study for the students;
a. To understand what human is;
b. To appreciate the development of the concept in the history of metaphysics;
c. To be able to outline some defining features of human nature as peculiarly
different from the other aspects of nature.
3.0 Main Content
Three broad images of the human nature are manifest in the literatures. These
include; the classical or rationalistic inherited from Ancient Greece and Rome; the
Judeo-Christian view and the naturalistic or biological view.
The classical thinking as regards the notion of the human person is that provided in
the work of Boethius which is that the human person is an individual substance of
a rational nature. The quality of rationality simply means a self-reflective
consciousness. Plato considered reason as the highest part of the soul and so it is
reason’s primary task to guide conduct. Aristotle also considered reason as the
highest faculty of the soul, and the distinguishing faculty that sets the human
person apart from the other parts of nature. This foregrounds the Cartesian notion
of the thinking self that is not only conscious of the fact that he entertains doubt
but that he was in fact conscious of his doubting self-encapsulated in his classic
44
formula, “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am). In developing this argument
of the human person, Omoregbe (38) outlines six features that make a person to
include: rationality, freedom, morality, sociality, interpersonal relationship, and
individuality. In other words, for one to be considered a human person, he or she
must be a rational being, a moral being, a social being, a free being, a being
capable of interpersonal relationship and an individual being. These fundamental
features outlined above do really distinguish the human person from all other
beings in nature.
Another important feature of the human person is the effort to clarify and
understand what makes up the human person and the implications of such
characterization. In the Cartesian system for instance, the human person is seen to
be made of two entities or substances: thought and matter otherwise referred to as
mind and body. Whereas the mind is a mental or immaterial substance which is
capable of thinking while the body is an extension of matter which is a material
substance. These two entities are interconnected in the human person within which
they affect and influence each other in some ways. The very exact nature of the
relationship between the two different substances; one immaterial and the other
material has remained problematic for scholars over the years since the time of
Descartes who first characterized the problematic in a very interesting manner.
Some of the various ways efforts have been made to account for the very nature of
relationship will be considered in the subsequent study unit.
The Judeo-Christian viewpoint suggests that the human person is considered as the
image of God and a special creature different from the parts of the created order. In
fact, the human person is seen as a finite being as well as a being that has some
spiritual connections as well. While it is part of the created order and thus affected
by the weaknesses and limitations of the earth or worldly affairs, it has the capacity
to transcend same when it is able to devote itself to the highest values and practice
- God. This theological and religious view reads meaning and purpose in the
created order. Humans are ends in themselves and should not be used as means to
an end. It also views the human person as a moral being who is morally
responsible, (Onyeocha 211).
The Naturalistic or scientific viewpoint on human nature suggests that the human
nature as part of the larger physical universe under the operations of natural laws
and principles. The fundamental role of cells and its other small elements are a key
to understanding the human person in relation to the larger universe that follows
the evolutionary processes and activities.
In the various philosophical traditions the make-up of the human person vary from
45
the popular notions in the western philosophical tradition. Whereas the human
person is seen to be made of two substances as it in the Cartesian system seen in
the foregoing, the mode of thinking and philosophical underpinnings in various
cultures may have different account with implications for how the human person is
perceived and understood. For example, in much of African philosophical thinking,
the accounts of the person provided are sometimes dualistic (the body and the
spirit/soul) whereas some others present tripartite framework involving three
entities to involve the body, the soul and the spirit. Little wonder, Gyekye (1998:
65) opines that in Akan metaphysics of the person and of the world in general, all
this seems to imply that a human being is not just an assemblage of flesh and bone,
that he or she, a complex being who cannot completely be explained by the same
laws of physics used to explain inanimate things and that our world cannot simply
be reduced to physics. The idea here is that the conception of the human person or
the nature of the human nature is a very important one and interests in telling the
narrative of what and how it is remains central not only among scholars but also
individuals across societies.
4.0 Summary
This study unit has explored the question of what human nature is and what sets it
apart from the other parts of nature or the universe. Three fundamental broad
theories were highlighted. These theories include: the rationalistic or classical
view, the Judeo-Christian model and the Naturalistic or scientific view of human
nature. If materialism (the thinking that all that there is in nature or the universe is
wholly matter and there is nothing extra to it; that is, mental aspect for instance) is
true then there is nothing unique about human nature that is constitutively part of
that nature/universe.
However, as the study unit shows, there is more to matter in nature. As
demonstrated in the foregoing discussion, human nature though as part of the
universe is peculiar and the peculiarities have been assessed. In fact, the effort to
investigate and discuss what reality really means for the human person itself is an
indication that such beings involved in the endeavours are conscious. An aspect of
human nature that cannot be wholly accounted for within the mechanistic or
scientific model of explanation alone and in fact does constitute a basis to draw a
line between such beings and the rest of the universe/nature.
5.0 Conclusion
While one may not be able to exhaustively and convincingly argue that one
position is ultimately the correct version of the problem at hand, at least some
robust familiarity with the various nuances make the exercise worthwhile and
philosophically rewarding.
46
Gyekye, K. (1998). “The Relation of Okra (soul) and Honam (body): An Akan
Conception”, in Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze (Ed).African Philosophy: An Anthology.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Onyeocha, I. M. (2009). Introfil: A First Encounter with Philosophy, Second
edition. Washington DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
47
Unit 2: On the Problem of Mind and Body
The mind-body problem remains one of the perennial problems in philosophy as it
has not only attended the interest of many philosophers through the ages but has
defied final resolution also.
1.0 Introduction
Ever since the time of Rene Descartes it has remained very central to philosophy.
More importantly the encroachment and resolution of many problems by the
sciences and its advances to understanding and explaining all that there is in terms
of matter and quantifiable and measurable terms have made this problem central
and important.
The learning outcomes or objectives of the study for students for this unit include;
a. To be able to understand the main thrust of the problem of mind and body;
b. To have an overview of the historical perspective to efforts in resolving it;
c. To stimulate reflections on the various theories there are in an effort to
resolve the problem of mind and body drawing on inspirations of earlier
thinkers.
3.0 Main Content
The mind-body problem is an attempt to understand the relationship between
mental phenomena and the bodily basis of those phenomena. It is exceedingly hard
to account for these; hence, it is a problem. The effort to understand and explain
how these two distinct parts actually do relate has generated a lot of theories and
debates. The classic distinction noted by Descartes point to some other issues that
have remained problematic in accounting for the nature of relationship between
mind and matter. Which of the two is more fundamental and how do they operate
in a human person? What is the nature of each and their features? How do these
two distinct and essentially different features really relate, if they do and where
does this take place? What is the nature of influence and effect that each exact on
the other? These are some of the questions that have divided experts in many
fields. While some are of the view that mind is the fundamental nature of reality
directing activities of the body. This is a claim held by materialists such as Gilbert
Ryle that mind or consciousness is epiphenomenon – that is, accidental bye-
product of matter.
There are numerous theories defended by experts in various fields in philosophy
and science. The focus here is not to highlight and engage all of these theories but
to point out some that we think are the popular and major ones with a view of
stimulating further reflections among students on this problem. We shall adopt the
categorization of theories in the explication of this problem in Aja (142-147)
48
because it provides very detailed as well as comprehensive summary of the main
points of the various theories in ways you do not find in the texts available to me.
The list includes the following;
1.1.1 Interactionism
The Cartesian formulation of the problem aptly captures the central thesis of this
theory which suggests that though of distinct nature with different essential
attributes, they however exact influences on one another – in other words, they
interact. Descartes went ahead to identify a part of the brain called the pineal gland
as the seat of the soul or the mind wherein this interaction takes place. Such a view
did not account for why there is interaction between the two distinct substances
and the location of a place within the brain where the interaction takes place was
an overreach on the part of Descartes. It is key to note that the double aspect theory
of body and mind proposed by Spinoza is not the same thing with the view of
Descartes and does not say much as regards interaction between both given that
mind and body (the mental and the physical aspects) are conceived of as two sides
of a single substance.
1.1.2 Occasionalism
This theory was suggested by Malebranche and according to him, on the occasion
of bodily stimuli or impressions, God create the appropriate idea and response in
the mind.
1.1.3 Parallelism
It the thought of Gottfried Leibniz, there is a parallel between the mental
phenomena and the physical phenomena and there is not any form of causal
relations between the two phenomena. Mental processes and physical processes are
equally real, they are not causally related; they merely accompany each other in
time.
1.1.4 Identity Theory
The theory simply holds that every mental item can be identified with some
physical item. Though there are several refinements and reformulation of this
theory the end goal is simply a targeted effort to totally eliminate the mental
dimension from within our understanding of the phenomenon.
1.1.5 Epiphenomenalism and the denial of mind
It is a theory that suggests a one dimensional mode of interaction whereby the
physical phenomena produces the mental features that are noticed and never in the
reverse order/vice versa. This view also suggests that the mind is merely a bodily
function. Aristotle, Hegel, Hobbes and other behaviourists such as Thomas Huxley
endorse this theory.
1.1.6 Psychical Monism and the denial of matter
49
This theory suggests the primacy of the mental over matter. Thus, the body is
considered as mental appearance to such an extent that causal series is confined to
the mental realm alone and so what we think or regard as matter is a shadow cast
by thought. Matter is merely an appearance such that the body is an externalization
of mind. Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer are its proponents.
1.1.7 Dualism
This doctrine is opposed to monism (only one fundamental kind of state in our
universe) that there are two fundamental kinds of states in the universe, mental
states and material states that are thoroughly distinct and totally separable from
each other. Mind and matter are considered to be equally fundamental, entirely
independent and mutually irreducible. Descartes and Leibniz are proponents of the
dualist view. There are different versions of the dualistic account of the mind and
body problem. For example, dualistic interactionism as described in the foregoing
part of this section which involves a 2 way interactionism – causation goes both
ways; from the mental to the material and vice versa. The Cartesian view is
representative of this model of dualism. The others are: the one-way model of
epiphenomenalism and then the no-way model of parallelism, (Carroll
&Markosian 2010: 135-136).
1.1.8 Mind according to Emerging
Evolution
This theory holds that there is no dualism, no interaction and no extreme denial.
Matter is real and mind is real. Mind however has new features of its own that
cannot be adequately interpreted with reference to the standards of previous levels.
The self is considered as the living individual with its needs and interests and
capacities for feeling, thinking, and creative imagination. The self is not the mind.
The self is the living being who carries on these mental processes, (Aja 147).
Some other thinkers have suggested that the problem is what it is because of the
linguistic and conceptual confusion that have been associated with the formulation
of the mind and body problem. The view is held by Gilbert Ryle, a contemporary
British philosopher who accused Descartes and others of being guilty of what he
calls category mistake. Category Mistake is committed when a concept is treated as
if it belonged to one system or category of ideas when, in fact, it belongs to
another. He thus, dismissed the idea of the mind by ridiculing it in terms of a ghost
in a machine – where ghost represents the mind and the machine for the body,
(Onyeocha 2009: 328).
4.0 Conclusion
This study unit has examined the mind and body problem that became
50
philosophically engaging right from the time of Rene Descartes. The problem
continues to be of interest to philosophers as well as other experts to account for
the nature of the relationship there is between mental processes and the bodily
extended self or properties as distinct substances. The study unit exposed the
various nuances of the attempts that have been proposed to resolve the intractable
problem. It identified various theories and described their main thrust.
5.0 Summary
The nature of the relationship between the mind and body was the central theme of
the study unit. The intriguing nature of the problem and how intractable the
problem has been in philosophy was highlighted. Different theories as attempts to
clarify the very nature of the relationship between the two distinct yet connected
entities in the human person. From those that proposed two distinct entities
causally involved and interactive, from extremes that deny one at the expense of
the other to moderate view were all highlighted.
6.0 References and Further Readings
Onyeocha, I.M. (2009). Introfil: AEncounter with Philosophy, Second Edition.
Washington DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Carroll, J.W. & Markosian, N. (2010). An Introduction to Metaphysics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Unah. J. I. (2010). Metaphysics. Lagos: University of Lagos Press.
51
MODULE 6: NOTION OF SUBSTANCE (MONISM VS PLUARISM)
In the history of metaphysics, one of the main points of disagreement between
Baruch Spinoza and Wilhelm Leibnitz is the nature of the underlying reality which
reason tells us to be so, whatever the senses tell us. In other words: what is the
nature of substances? Must there be only one of these or many, and if the latter,
how many?
Unit 1: Substance: Problems and its Characterisations
1.0 Introduction
For this study unit, we set out to examine the concept and place of substance in
metaphysics or philosophy generally. What is the notion of substance about? Is
substance necessary and how does one distinguish between one substance and the
other? What are the traditional and modern theories of substance? It also attempts a
philosophical excursion and discussion on substance in metaphysics in its various
periods.
2.0 Objective of the study
The main objectives of the study are:
a. To underpin what the notion of substance connotes
b. To know the history of the debates surrounding the notion of substance
c. To ascertain the various dimensions of what the notion means in
metaphysics
3.0 Main Content
The notion of substance is an important one in metaphysics that has continued to
be of interest to philosophers. The ability to be able to sustain talk and belief in
change and identity over time makes sense only when we appreciate what the
concept of substance implicates/means. Whereas the Greek and Latin roots or
etymology of the word substance may mean different things but whichever way
one may conceive it, it is always in relation with the idea of being or beingness.
From its Latin root, it means something standing beneath the properties. The Latin
word, sub (under) stans (standing). While the Greek word for substance “ousia”
means that which is fundamental. According to Iroegbu (49), substance is
contrasted with accident. The former exists in itself whereas the latter inheres or
exists in the substance. The substance supports the accident in existence, underlies
it.
In Aristotle, substance means particular things. For example, this man, this horse,
used to refer to matter, a category. For him, there are primary and secondary
substances, the latter being species or general instances of primary substances.
Omoregbe (5) adds that “in Aristotle’s philosophy substance has two meanings. In
the first sense, substance is whatever exists on its own while its opposite, accident,
52
is whatever cannot exist on its own but can only inhere in other things”. A clear
example of this can simply be gleaned when we look and consider colours, which
is a clear case of understanding the difference between the contrast between the
notion of substance and accidents. It is the case that colours do not exist on their
own. Their existence is premised on something more fundamental in which
particular colour exists or inheres.
In Locke, substance refers to that which underlies something or other which is
supposed to give support to the properties that inhere in it. In describing this
traditional doctrine of substances, particular substances are never predicated of
anything else but everything else is predicated of them. This also constitute what
Strawson calls the basic logical subjects.
Basic particulars are not only identifiable; they are re-identifiable. That is, they not
only occupy space but do have a certain persistence through time, so they can be
re-identified as the same thing as that which was. Aristotle puts the matter by
saying that they are the only things that can remain the same while receiving
contrary qualifications. They retain their identity through change. Substances
therefore have a relative permanence; they do not have a merely instantaneous
form of life. They have a form and matter and so substances are the building
blocks of both material and immaterial reality as well. In this context, the contrast
between substance and accident makes a lot of sense.
One important feature of substance is the idea of simplicity. In fact, simplicity is
said to be an important feature of what constitute substance. The thesis that
substances must be simple is integral to atomist theories as long as they hold that
the atomicity or indivisibility of atoms is one of principle and not merely
something that holds good in fact. Thus, the basicness of substance must itself
entail its absolute simplicity. A clear example of this in the history of philosophy is
the contribution of Leibniz with reference to his theory of monadology. Monads
are simple and basic entities from which all of nature is made of. They are simple
in the way that the ego is; they are absolutely one yet capable of representing a
plurality, as the ego does in its perception of the world. This is a feature which is
not exemplified in any material thing, so that the ultimate substances must for that
reason, be immaterial.
In contemporary thinking, the advancement of science and its worldviews tend to
give impression and plausibility to the view that the best way in which to speak
and think about the world are not those of substance, identity and change, but for
example, events and processes. A. N. Whitehead is an example in fact. For his,
what we earlier thought to be substances are best conceptualised as aspects of
processes. In fact, science does not sustain the conception of the world of persistent
53
substance subject to change. The objects are rather ingredients into events; they are
one might say, logical constructions out of events and processes, (Hamylin 60-84).
The next point to then clarify is what happens and how are we able to tell the
difference between one substance and another? Attempts to respond to this
question are central to what medieval scholars refer to as the problem of the
principle of individuation. Here connected with this problem therefore is the theme
of identity and how to distinguish one thing from the other. While it is important to
note that this problem though important should not detract from the fact that the
notion of substance here defended is one which constitute the specific nature of a
thing and thus synonymous with essence or nature. It is in virtue of which a thing
is what it is, as distinct from other things or from its qualities.
4.0 Summary
The foregoing unit treated the notion of substance, meaning and its distinctive
nature character. In the process it provided a historical assessment of the notion of
substance by tracing the etymology of the word both in Latin and Greek to
underscore the fact that substance can simply be contrasted with accident.
Substance was considered to be that which is fundamental or the basic principle,
supporting being and primary reality under which accidents inhere or lie.
5.0 Conclusion
This study unit examined one of the problems in metaphysics – substance and its
nature. It provided insights into the historical and contemporary reflections on
what the notion of substance connotes.
Omoregbe, J. (1996). Metaphysics without Tears: A Systematic and Historical
Egbeke, A. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Press.
University Press Ltd.
54
MODULE 7: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM
Freedom are of many types; from to do as one pleases and the absence of any
constraints. For example, anyone in prison cannot be said to have the first sense of
freedom to do as much as one pleases. One of the very often quoted line from Jean
Jacques Roseau is “man is born free but he is everywhere in chains”, to underscore
the importance that is given to the concept of freedom. In fact, in many societies
today, freedom is a popular term as it is always referred to as one of the pillars of
civilization and political advancement whereby this notion of freedom is not only
enshrined in the constitutions of states that guide societies and people but
acclaimed to be what is fundamentally human against the backdrop of universal
human rights calls. Despite the inalienable nature of its character in sociopolitical
parlance, it is basically of metaphysical nature that is of interest to us in this study
unit. It is against this backdrop that this module seeks to examine what is freedom
and what the lack or absence of it means; that is, determinism.
Unit 1: Freedom and Free Will
1.0 Introduction
What is freedom is the question that this study unit seeks to answer. What are the
types of freedom that there are and why is the notion of freedom metaphysically
interesting? Is there any metaphysical basis for the notion of freedom? If yes, what
is it? If no, why? This will be the focus of this present study unit.
The objectives of this study unit for students are;
a. To understand the meaning of freedom.
b. To underscore the metaphysical basis of the notion of freedom.
c. To be able to explicate why the notion of freedom is problematic.
3.0 Main Content
Freedom is one concept that is very often used but hardly there is unanimous and
universal consensus as to what exactly it means. In some texts and defended by
some authors are two ways to conceptualise freedom or tell what freedom is from
what it is not. These two notions are; freedom to and freedom from. The two
senses do not mean the same thing as we would see shortly. The former sense
connotes the ability to do as one pleases which is of an internal kind. It is to use the
positive sense of the word freedom. The second manner of use means absence of
any constrain of any sort which may be an external kind of factor. This latter sense
is to use the notion of freedom in the negative sense. Freedom is used
interchangeably with free will and it is used in relation to the nature of the human
person in the universe. Thus, the understanding that one holds of the very nature of
the universe; that includes, the origin and character of the universe defines how
55
one approaches and understands the concept of freedom or freewill. Is freedom or
freewill a matter of illusion or it is real in the sense that the human person has a
unique place within the entire universe and does operate with capacities that are
uniquely associated only with the human person. Freewill or freedom problem
arises in the context of the question of moral responsibility. That is, whether it is
morally responsible to hold the human person for his/her actions and inactions in
the society. Thus, if it is the case that the human person is fundamentally free then
it makes sense to hold the human person responsible for whatever actions carried
out by the person. If it is the case that the human person is not free then such a
person cannot be said to be morally responsible and so make no sense to be held
accountable for such an action.
If freedom is true then determinism is false. And if determinism is true then
freewill is false. In other words, both positions cannot be true at the same time and
in the same context. However, there are ways in which these contraries can be
reformulated and refined in order to accommodate both positions as we shall see
when we study the problematic nature of the two together in one of our subsequent
study units.
Sometimes questions are raised as to whether there is a limit to freedom (limited
freedom) or there isn’t any limit to it (absolute freedom). In existentialist thinking
of J.-P. Sartre, the human person is accorded absolute freedom and so cannot but
be fully and wholly responsible for the choices and decisions thereof. According to
Iroegbu (255) the existential freedom defines his essence. The human person has
creative power to escape the mechanical laws of nature and evolution. The
progress of human creativity proves this his total freedom. My freedom is my
whole being, my entire existence. The import of this for morality therefore is that
only one law operates: choose thyself! Choose thy values. Thus, in the exercise of
his unlimited freedom, the human person makes his or her image which of course
does have consequence in the sense that it involves anguish for one cannot shift the
responsibility to others.
4.0 Summary
The notion of freedom was the subject matter of the study unit. Different types of
freedom were identified and some few examples were given. The notion of moral
56
freedom was problematized because that is the only sense or type of freedom that
makes meaningful and metaphysically interesting the discourse on moral
responsibility.
5.0 Conclusion
The focus of this study unit was the idea of freedom and what it means. It
examines why the notion of freedom is of philosophical or metaphysical interest. It
particularly highlighted the fact that the type of freedom that makes our study
metaphysically interesting is the notion of moral freedom because of its relevance
for issues related to moral responsibility.
Ajah, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Press.
Loux, M. J & Zimmerman, D. W. (Eds). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
Carroll, J. W. &Markosian, N. (2010).An introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge:
Universities Press td.
Omoregbe, J. I. (1996). Metaphysics without Tears: A Systematic and Historical
Study. Lagos: Joja Educational Press Ltd.
Unit 2: Determinism
Determinism denies that there is freewill or freedom. The human person does not
have free will to exercise in taking actions or making choices. There are different
brands or variants of determinism that have been defended through the course of
the history of philosophy.
1.0 Introduction
When the human person is said to be determined is to say that the human person
lacks the capacity to exercise any form of freewill. In characterizing the human
person, several factors and causes have been identified as limiting the capacity of
the human person to be free in making choices. When the notion of determinism is
stretched to its limits, it means that holding the human person morally responsible
for his or her actions and decisions will be problematic. This unit will therefore
attempt to clarify what the basic features of determinism are, its various forms
given the various reasons advanced in defense of the claim and the position of the
proponents that hold these views.
57
The unit will help students to:
a. Underpin determinism;
b. Understand the historical evolution of determinism;
c. Distinguish the various types of determinism and their proponents.
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Determinism?
Determinism means the denial or rejection of freewill associated with the capacity
of the human person to exercise freewill/freedom in any significant way in making
decisions, choices or taking actions. It means that everything that happens is
determined as everything has a cause. No wonder then Aja (154) states that it is a
doctrine of universal causation. It says only that every event has a cause. It does
not say whether the cause is mental or physical, whether it is inorganic nature or
organism or people or God. As far as determinism is concerned the cause can be
anything. If determinism is true, then there is no freewill since the two positions
cannot be true and false at the same time. Or better still, is there a way in which
these apparent contrary positions can be reformed or revised to accommodate the
possibility of both positions being true or false at the same time?
Extreme form of determinism is often regarded as fatalism. Fatalism is simply the
view that whatever will be will be. In other words, human beings for example have
no power to change the course of events. It does not deny that everything that
happens has a cause. What it says in effect is simply that the future will be of
certain nature regardless of what we do, and that therefore there is no point in our
trying to do anything about it, (Aja 155). This position has a lot of implications for
human persons and societies where such views are the prevailing worldviews. So
for example, certain people can resign themselves to fate and eschew hard work
and diligence that can sometimes impact on the prospects of the successes that one
58
can attain or achieve. The point here is that the position of fatalism seems to be a
pernicious view that ought to be done away with by all means necessary.
If everything is caused, how can we avoid the problem of infinite regression in our
quest to account for the series of causes responsible for causing series of events
under query?
3.2 Types of Determinism
There are many types of determinism that have been identified by various scholars.
Broadly two broad ways to look at the problem of determinism is the extent to
which any position of determinism is able to accommodate and provide some
space for moral responsibility. Such that when those who hold deterministic views
make room for moral responsibility and accountability such a view is
representative of soft version of determinism. On the other hand, any system that
leaves no room at all within their deterministic views for moral responsibility, such
extreme versionsis generally hard determinism. We shall now examine different
systems to see where each fall into whether soft or hard versions of determinism.
Following Omoregbe’s (29) classification, the various types of determinism
include; ethical determinism (human actions are determined by what they perceive
as good. The role of knowledge is key for this form of determinism. According to
some of its proponents, to include, Socrates and Plato, even those who do evil do it
unknowingly. After all, evil is in the long term harmful to the doer. Theological
determinism is another type. For this form of determinism God has the
foreknowledge of all actions and so it is very problematic to reconcile the fact of
freedom of the human person and the knowledge of such action known by God
prior to the action ever taking place. A deep assessment of the fact of God’s
foreknowledge of the future actions of humans does not conflict with the notion of
freewill of the human person as defended by Augustine and others. There is
however a problematic version of this type of determinism – predestination which
holds that some persons have been so selected and specially chosen by God and
endowed with grace with guaranteed salvation. For the materialists who describe
the operations of nature to be predicated on the principles or laws of nature, there
is not so much room for human freedom because the human person as part and
parcel of the physical universe are controlled by those laws. This form of
determinism is called physical determinism. This form of determinism denies any
extra-physical dimension of the human person given the mechanistic orientation at
the foundation of materialism generally. There is however some problems
associated with this kind of thinking about the human person considered to be
entirely and wholly matter. Some of the thinkers who hold this materialistic notion
of the world and of course of the human person include scholars like Thomas
59
Hobbes and Baron Paul Von Holbach. Another form or type of determinism is
psychological determinism which holds that psychological factors such as motives
and instincts determine human actions and so the human person cannot be said to
be free if these factors are solely responsible in causing humans to act. David
Hume, Sigmund Freud and Thomas Hobbes defend this form of determinism. The
problem with the form of determinism is to think that for every action that has a
cause and that cause in effect determines the action which does not necessarily
follow. This is the case because as Omoregbe (34) puts it, “to say that an action is
free does not mean that it has no cause. Every action indeed has a cause. But the
cause of an action does not determine it. What determines one’s action
immediately is one’s free choice, which is one’s free decision”. Finally, there is
historical determinism which simply holds that history and the events in history are
determined. Hegel is a strong proponent of this form of determinism. So for him,
historical events are crucial parts, in fact inevitable moments of the dialectic
process through which the absolute realizes self-development in view of attaining
absolute rationality. Karl Marx is another thinker who holds a similar view of
history but in this case production or economic forces are the prime determinants
of historical process in view of the advancement or progress of society to the
highest form of society – communism. The problem with this form of determinism
is that it denies the role and responsibility of humans in the affairs pertaining their
lives and history.
In the modern era, especially in Kant we see that the experience of the human
person on the moral plane makes a very strong case for the fact of human freedom.
Thus, the attempt in metaphysics or any form of speculative reflection to resolve
the problem of human freedom will yield little or no result. The human experience
of regret or remorse and blame worthiness or praise worthiness following decisions
or choices humans make or take as well as the very foundation of meaningfulness
really of the various codes that operate in society are pointers to the fact that the
human person is indeed free.
4.0 Summary
In this study unit, we have examined determinism which means that human actions
are determined. In other words, it is the theory that suggests that there is a cause
for everything and these causes determine human actions. Two broad versions of
60
deterministic thinking viz: soft and hard versions were identified and described.
While the former allows and makes room for holding humans morally accountable
for their actions, the latter leaves no room for moral responsibility at all. We also
went further to examine the various types of these broad versions of determinism
to include; physical, theological, historical, psychological determinism and the
problems associated with each and outlined their various proponents.
5.0 Conclusion
We have looked at what is determinism in the foregoing study unit. We identified
various versions of determinism and the specific types of determinisms there are
and their defenders in the history of philosophy. We concluded the study unit by
taking our cue from Kant who argued that is the moral experiences of the human
person that gives us insights and clues into thinking seriously that the human
person indeed is free. For if the human person is not free, then there is hardly any
basis for the human feeling of remorse, regret, blameworthiness and praise
worthiness as well as the meaningfulness and reasonability of the various codes
whether criminal or social that guide society.
Omoregbe, J. (1996). Metaphysics without Tears: A systematic and Historical
Universities Press td.
61
MODULE 8: PARTICIPATION
This study unit by its very nature will be brief as it seeks to examine what the
notion of participation is in philosophical parlance and the implications. It
therefore seeks to outline and underscore the meaning/definition of the term and
provide an account of its nature.
Unit 1: On Participation: Meaning/Definition and Nature
Given that material objects exist, do such things as properties exist? If yes, how
and in what sense do they exist, apart from the material objects that instantiate
them? Do the material objects in which these properties inhere exhaust the
possibility of their existence such that when the material object goes out of
existence for example, what becomes of the properties that once inhere in the
material objects? What is the nature of the relationship between the existing
material objects and the properties that inhere in these material objects? What is
the notion of participation all about in philosophy? How do you define and
understand the term participation are questions this study unit seeks to examine in
this brief study unit.
1.0 Introduction
In ordinary usage, participation means to be involved in an activity or to take part
in or be part of something, event. In philosophical parlance however the term
evokes much more than that because of some questions that such a notion
connotes. Thus, this study unit will briefly explore the philosophical import of the
notion of participation with a view to outlining some of the problems the
philosophical usage of the terms implicates.
2.0 Objective of the Study
This objectives of this study unit for students include;
a. to understand what the term connotes/means;
b. to appreciate the idea of participation in philosophy;
c. to note the philosophical problems the characterization provokes;
3.0 Main Content
Participation is generally the concept Plato uses to explain the relationship between
two worlds; the world of the senses/world of appearances characterized by fleeting
and passing or transiting features and the world of ideas/forms which consists of
the necessary, permanent and enduring essences which alone possesses real
existence, its reality is true to the extent that it participates, shares in or imitates the
62
fully real of the ideal world. Thus, what we have in the transient world are mere
copies, imitation, or participation of essences of these realities in the most real and
model world of the ideal.
Two worlds are distinguished in Plato’s idealism; this forms the overarching
character of his metaphysics and contained in his theory of the world of forms or
the ideal world. The two worlds are – world of existence or reality generally and
the world of the senses. In the latter, that is the present world or world of the
senses; things are rather transient and passing while in the former is transcendent
world wherein inheres permanent things, universals, essences of things. Things
exist in their originality and completeness in this realm according to Plato. In fact
the ideas and knowledge of universals such as wisdom, goodness, beauty, justice
and other universals are as a result of the pre-existence experience of the soul in
that realm that we are able to recall only when the soul remembers or recollects
them. The vagueness with which we are able to recall this stuff was caused by the
pains associated with birth.
Plato’s philosophy is called idealism not because he regards ideas as reality or
reality as ideas but because he transfers the essence of things into the ideal world in
his philosophy. In that ideal world alone is objective reality discoverable. Thus,
what constitutes being, the essence of being can be found in that world of
ideas/forms. It is in the relationship of the two worlds that the idea of participation
finds its meaning. For example, when one is said to be growing in wisdom, beauty
or improving in the sense of justice, this means that there is an objective wisdom,
beauty, and justice in which one participatorily increases. This ideal being or virtue
is in the ideal world. It alone gives satisfactory explanation of the progression of
knowledge and particularly of the being we experience, participatorily here and
now. A flower can be beautiful only in so far as it partakes of absolute beauty,
(Iroegbu 138).
There is however some problems that arise in the sense that a substance cannot
exist apart from that of which it is a substance, how do they relate if they exist
apart? In response, Plato says it is only through participation. This creates an
obvious ontological dualism. For the metaphor of participation, imitation and
reminiscence for soul-body relationship, then there is an essential ontological gap
that needs filling. If there is only participation between things; that is, between
particular objects along with their properties in relation to their perfect others in the
world of ideas, there is no substantial causality and the problem of origin is left
unresolved.
As against the transcendent place of existence of universals in the world of forms
63
seen in Plato, Aristotle defends the position that universals exists, not outside of
the real world but in the world of our experience. This understanding is the basis of
science and of all authentic and balanced philosophy.
The concept was also prevalent in the thoughts of some medieval philosophers
such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their understanding of the attributes of God and
how the human person shares in the attributes though in an imperfect and limited
form. According to Omoregbe (157), for although creatures are beings, in actual
fact God is being itself; he is not simply a being but Being itself. He does not
simply have life, but he is life itself; he is not simply just (as we say of human
beings), but he is justice itself; he is not simply good, but he is Goodness itself,
Beauty itself, etc. he is the infinite Source of all these attributes; he does not simply
have them, rather they are identical with his being as the Source from which
human beings share or participates in.
4.0 Summary
This study has examined the concept of participation. It looked at the meaning of
the concept and how it is central to understanding the nature of relationship
between universals and the particulars.
5.0 Conclusion
The meaning and definition of participation was examined. The problem of
understanding the relationship between particulars and universals in central in our
understanding of the concept of participation. The contributions of Plato and of
course Aristotle during the Classical era were significant in the building blocks that
formed the philosophical works of medieval scholars to the concept of
participation is not only significant but huge in many ways. According to the
analysis the particulars are identifiable and calibrated based on the extent to which
they inhere in them, the universals. Whereas the universals exist in perfection in
the world of forms the particulars in their imperfection only participates or imitates
the universals.
Ioegbu, P. (1994). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri: International
Universities press Ltd.
64
Ajah, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Press.
Loux, M. J & Zimmerman, D. W. (Eds). (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
65
MODULE 9: ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE
The concept of essence and existence are a pair of metaphysical trope (recurrent
and persistent theme) through which we can further understand and characterise
the nature of reality. Various philosophers have different views on what constitute
the essence of reality and what the very nature of existence is all about to which
this present module shall focus attention.
Unit 1: On Essence and Existence
For this study unit, the focus will be the examination of what is essence and
existence and how both terms have been used in the metaphysical parlance through
the years. In doing this, the study unit will attempt a clarification or definition of
what each term means and how the various philosophers have understood them
during the major epochs of philosophy.
1.0 Introduction
For this study unit, the overall interest is to attempt the examination of these two
concepts or principles that are often used in the attempt to describe and capture
reality. What and how do we best define these terms in ways that address the main
currents of what each mean? What are the historical discourses associated with
these two important tropes in the description of reality. It is important to note
upfront that there is a contested position by existential ontologists or existential
phenomenologists that essence is something added to existence or rather that
existence takes on essence to be properly and uniquely characterized. In fact, they
contend that only human beings exist, that other entities merely are; they are
seindes not dasein. The term dasein characterizes human reality because of all
entities; it is dynamically cast into the world. It is this inbuilt dynamism that
accounts for human actions, creativity and innovations which other animals and
non-sentient entities do not have.
The point is that the term existence in ordinary usage is a corruption. It is a term
that applies specifically to human being, considering its priority and capacities in
the scheme of things, which other entities do not possess. That is why existence,
for human reality, precedes essence.
At the end of this study unit, the students will learn the following;
a. the students will understand what is essence;
b. the students will understand what is existence;
c. the students will appreciate the historical contributions of various thinkers to
these two terms and how relevant such efforts are today.
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Essence?
66
Essence has been defined in quite a number of ways. One of the ways in which
essence has been defined is as that by which a thing is what it is. It is that which a
thing is before it took real or concrete actual existence. It is potency to being.
When contrasted with existence, essence is that which takes on existence.
Existence is the essence put into reality, the realization of the essential, real or
concrete being.
Essence is seen as the definable nature of whatever exists. It is that which makes a
being different from other beings in terms of its ability to define and show that a
particular being is different from the another being. The essence of a particular
being can then be conceived of without necessarily having to be the case that the
being in question actually exists. Essence is therefore that which has existence but
it is not existence. This idea is at the centre of the eidetic principle that the
renowned phenomenologist, Edmund Husserl, talks about the being concerned
only with essences and not existence per se or actual existence. The problem with
this phenomenological view then becomes one of settling the question whether
there can be essence without existence or existence without essence. Scholars are
of the view that there cannot be a situation whereby essence can be conceived
outside of existence or the consideration of existence outside of essence, for the
two are complementary and are quite inseparable. This is the case as St. Thomas
Aquinas argues that it is existence that gives meaning or makes essence real or part
of reality as such. Hence, this Thomistic idea draws a line of distinction between
essence and existence in the beings that are imperfect, for example, the human
person or any other finite beings. For existence is not of the nature of finite beings
as such.
3.2 What is Existence?
Existence means that which is a reality or which has true, actual being. It is that
which we see, touch or know to be here or there or somewhere else. What makes
this reality real is the act of existing, its perfection. It is what makes a thing be in
reality, in itself, phenomenologically spread in existential universe. It is the
passage from possibility to actuality, from process to reality, from non-being to
being, in other words, from nothing to something, (Iroegbu 48). It is important to
quickly note that this feature of transition or change from being to non-being is
only meaningful when finite beings are in question and not Necessary Being who
has as parts of its very nature, existence as well as essence together.
It is important to note upfront that there is a contested position by existential
ontologists or existential phenomenologists that essence is something added to
existence or rather that existence takes on essence to be properly and uniquely
characterized. In fact, they contend that only human beings exist, that other entities
67
merely are; they are seindes not dasein. The term dasein characterizes human
reality because of all entities; it is dynamically cast into the world. It is this inbuilt
dynamism that accounts for human actions, creativity and innovations which other
animals and non-sentient entities do not have.
The point is that the term existence in ordinary usage is a corruption. It is a term
that applies specifically to human being, considering its priority and capacities in
the scheme of things, which other entities do not possess. That is why existence,
for human reality, precedes essence.
3.3 Essence and Existence
We have tried in the foregoing to define and delineate what essence and existence
mean separately. In this section we will now examine the two since they both
always go together as complementary as well as inseparable themes in
metaphysics. In fact, to understand how the two are so related it is important to
distinguish between the idea of contingent beings and necessary being. As the
terms contingency implies any being that exists contingently and so does not have
to exist and it is imperfect in many respects. Such beings do not have as part of
their nature both essence and existence. For a being to be categorized as necessary
being it follows that the being cannot but exist because it has as part of its very
nature both essence and existence. Thus, in the necessary being, essence and
existence are identical. According to the scholastics, particularly, Thomas Aquinas
defended this view to the extent that contingent beings depend and rely on
Necessary Being (God) for its existence. In the modern period, Kant argued that
the attempt to separate existence from a being, contingent being in this case was
flawed. This is the case because to think or imagine a being is to take for granted
its existence since existence is in fact not an attribute or a predicate of the being.
In the contemporary times, the characterization we draw upon from the medieval
era that consider existence to limit the essence of a contingent being is at a
crossroad given the radical shifts in the understanding of the human person. The
work is in progress within the technological and scientific world for the
transhuman project. There are promises regarding possible fundamental changes to
how we think and consider some of these features with which we try to understand
the being of the human person and other emerging developments - ambitious
projects and programmes in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics science.
3.0 Summary
The brief study unit discusses essence and existence against the backdrop of our
understanding of being divided into necessary being and contingent beings.
Whereas necessary being had as parts of its very nature both essence and existence
as well as other attributes that are part of it necessarily but that is not the case for
68
contingent beings whereby we can in fact draw a line between its essence and its
existence. That we can draw a line of distinction between existence and essence
does not mean that we can have essence without existence or existence without
essence since the two are complementary and inseparable. In fact, it is existence
that gives meaningfulness to essence and it also limits it as well. It defines what
essence is and what existence is. Whereas existence means that which is a reality
or which has true, actual being; essence is that by which a thing is what it is. These
views on the features of existence and essence are at a threshold at a time there is
increasing desire and effort through science and technology to attempt a radical
shift in the understanding of the human person through transhumanism and other
related projects.
4.0 Conclusion
The study unit attempted to define and characterize essence and existence as one of
the interesting metaphysical principles to explain reality or the beingness of reality.
This has attended the interest of philosophers through the history of metaphysics.
Essence simply means the ‘what’ of a thing or being while existence is the act of
being exercised by beings. At the centre of this discourse is the fundamental
attempt to understand the nature of being; necessary being or contingent beings.
While necessary being exists necessarily contingent beings exist contingently; that
is, their own existence is not necessary and they do not have as part of their nature
both existence and essence. It adds to the contemporary challenge that such
characterization is due to face increasing and growing advancement in science and
technology aimed at transforming the human being in very radical and fundamental
ways; that is, the project of trans-humanism for instance is a case in point.
Ajah, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Dinze Press.
Universities Press Limited.
Study. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited.
Omoregbe, J. (1997). A Simplified History of Western Philosophy. Lagos: Joja
Educational research and Publishing Limited.
Unah, J. I. (2010). Metaphsyics. Lagos: University of Lagos Press.
69
MODULE 10: CHANCE/INDETERMINISM AND CAUSALITY
Chance is often contrasted with necessity in which case the explication of these
terms will shed some light on other important and related terms very often used in
relation to these terms.
Unit 1: Chance/Indeterminism and Causality
This study unit undertakes a discursive expose on the terms chance/indeterminism
and causality with a view to understanding how the terms are related and
interrelated with one another and their implications for our understanding on the
operations and workings of the universe and our place within it as such.
1.0 Introduction
How does the universe and what is contained there operate? Is or are there laws
that are foundational to events and occurrences that occur in the universe? Is there a
place for chance and its logic in the affairs and operations in the universe? What
are the implications for adopting a view predicated on the logic of luck? Does it sit
well or contradict those who believe or hold the view that the created order of the
universe operates based on inexorable laws put in place by the creative power? If
there are these laws, can we know them? Do we even need to invoke a creative
power in order to have an understanding of the operations of the universe? What is
the limit of these laws? Where does chance come in? Are things or events
indeterminate? If they are determinate, what are these causes? What are the
implications of these understanding for problems of freedom and determinism we
have examined in one of the previous modules in this same course guide? These
are some of the few questions that will inform and guide the following reflection
undertaken in this study unit.
The learning objectives for students in this study unit are;
a. to help students learn what chance/indeterminate means;
b. to facilitate understanding what causality means;
c. to assist students appreciate our place within the larger universe;
3.0 Main Content
What is chance? Indeterminacy?
These terms are closely associated with the notion of causality especially when
contrasted such that to really understand them would mean an explication of the
easier term – causality. Hence, indeterminism technically as applied in philosophy
means an event that has no cause. When there is not a cause for an event then
chance becomes the only operational trope by which that makes sense or any
meaning. The implication of this line of thinking therefore is that chance becomes
the principle in place when there is absence of a cause. For example, the popular
70
sports betting that is increasingly becoming both interesting as well as a troubling
culture among young people across Nigeria today. Suppose someone purchased a
bet ticket and bets for Manchester City win just before the start of the final match
that held during 2021 Champions League Cup Final Match between Chelsea and
Manchester United. The game ended in favour of Chelsea to the shocking
experience of loss of the fellow who purchased the ticket for a Manchester City
win. Analyzing this scenario of the result and the subsequent loss of the ticket
purchased largely underscore this understanding of chance and indeterminacy in
relation to the absence of a cause/uncaused cause. In other words, when one ticket
is bought for a game of finals and just a team is expected to win, one who gambles
at the beginning of the game may have relied on the principle of chance to bet for a
win for a club that eventually lost in the final match. This is the case because the
game could have gone either way as the possible result was undetermined.
Without going into the details of the argument for and against chance or
indeterminacy as it is also of specific interest to physicists, mathematicians and
scholars on probability theories, suffice it to note that the idea of chance or
indeterminacy is not only problematic but quite inconsistent with developments
and advancements taking place and happening in modern science. Einstein’s
remark that God does not play dice is a pointer to the robust understanding of the
workings of nature - Newtonian laws for example which provided a deterministic
account of the laws that govern motion in the universe and the obvious successes
this have had for the space science and exploration, amongst others.
How can we Describe Causality? - Various Ways of Understanding Causality
If we take for granted that the world in which we live; that is, the universe is
deterministic to some extent then it is very sensible to take for granted the relations
between cause and effect to explain the causal relations that underpin the notion of
causality. While a cause generally taken to precede the effects in the temporal
context, there are, however, some cases wherein the two; that is, cause and effect
can be contemporaneous. An example of this is the movement of the towing
vehicle causing the towed vehicle to move, (Omoregbe 25).
According to Omoregbe (25), a cause is that which brings about a certain effect. In
other words, a cause is that by which something (an effect) is produced. While
attempting to provide an account for the possibility of change, Aristotle
enumerates four causes. They are; the formal cause – determines what a thing is;
the material cause – that out of which a thing is made; the efficient cause – by what a
thing is brought about; and the final cause – the end or purpose for which it is
brought about.
In contemporary usage however, the term “cause” seems to be used more often for
71
one type of the causes, namely, the efficient cause – by what a thing is brought
about or into existence. This has become an important part of the scientific
enterprise based on the two fundamental assumptions upon which the notion of
cause as responsible for effect does make any sense. Two of those assumptions
take granted the fact that the world is an orderly one; governed by laws. The
thinking is that the universe is not just a chaotic universe where anything can
happen. These two basic assumptions presupposed in scientific reasoning include;
the fact that nature is uniform and the fact of universality of causality – these two
assumptions are at the centre of the inductive model of reasoning deployed in the
sciences.
Against the backdrop of the foregoing, there are other building blocks that rely on
the presuppositions above to characterize our understanding of causality. The idea
of necessary connection between cause and effect; whereby, whenever any effect is
observed, there must be a cause closely related and responsible for the effect we
notice or observe. Thus, there cannot be any event or effect without a cause since
they are necessarily connected or related. David Hume was the first modern
philosopher to raise objections to this assumption and characterization of the
necessary relation held or believed to be between a cause and an effect or event.
This has become the classic Hume’s problem or the problem of induction generally
a theme that students would expectedly have the opportunity for more detailed
assessment in another course – Philosophy of Science.
Hume on Causality (Necessary Relations/ Contiguous Relations)
For David Hume, we do not have any experience of the assumed necessary
connection between a cause and effect rather what we have that has become a part
of thinking and talking of the relationship are merely as a result of habitual
disposition of the mind to constantly associate the relation just because these stuffs
occur contiguously; that is, we usually observe that they happen very often in
sequence. Hume also undermined the presupposition we hold about the fact of the
uniformity of nature because according to him, there is no way to prove the fact of
the uniformity of nature. For example, there is no guarantee that the future will
follow the order of the past or resemble the past in perfect manner. Having
undermined the two assumptions at the heart of the principle of causality and
therefore the operations of the laws of nature, many philosophers thus prefer to
adopt a more appealing term that leaves out the idea of intrinsic or necessary
connection between cause and effect.
Thus, the term sufficient reason or sufficient condition now is adopted to
foreground an effect to take place or to be produced. Cause is no longer seen in
terms of intrinsic or necessary connection between cause and effect but when there
72
is a sufficient condition present, an effect can be observed though not necessarily.
It is important to state that this idea of causality is largely material and physical
within the western thought system that may not necessarily be an exhaustive
characterization of it in other cosmologies. For example, in African cosmology, the
notion of causality is not necessarily material or physical as within some
worldviews where there can be extra-physical modes of causes for certain effects
however controversial.
3.0 Summary
The study unit examined the meaning of chance/indeterminacy and causality. It
notes that chance or indeterminacy is the absence of cause or uncaused cause for
an event or effect. The notion is however very problematic as it is complex and of
interest to experts in sciences such as physics, mathematics and probability
sciences. A universe characterized as orderly and somewhat deterministic does not
seem to align with the assumptions of chance or indeterminacy to operate because
there are laws of nature that guide the operations and events in nature. The notion
of causes developed and enumerated by Aristotle were highlighted and how only
one form of it; that is, the efficient cause is now associated with causality in
modern thinking/science.
The notion of causality was defined as the causal relations between cause and
effect; sometimes a cause preceded an effect, and some other times they happen at
the same time. The presuppositions that are assumed for this to be the case
especially in providing an account of how the universe operates were identified to
include the universality of causality and the fact of the uniformity of nature. Some
other terms associated with causality such as constant necessary connection
between causes and effects were identified. These assumptions and terms were
criticized by the classic intervention of David Hume that undermined the
plausibility of the logic of inductive reasoning at the heart of modern science and
our common sense thinking and way of talking about the world/universe popularly
regarded as Hume’s problem in philosophy.
In place of the problematic nature of the use of necessary connection, philosophers
and scientists now adopt a less problematic phrase – sufficient reason or sufficient
condition to be satisfied before an event is produced or can be observed. It again
noted that the notion of physical causality may not be a universal feature for all as
in some other cosmologies such as the African thought, there can be extra-physical
causal claims to certain operations or events or effects however controversial –
paranormal operations for example.
4.0 Conclusion
The study unit examined the notion of chance/indeterminacy and causality. It
73
identified the four causes outlined by Aristotle, and the now adopted version of
cause in modern science – the efficient cause. It also outlined the basic
characterization of causality and related terms while noting the assumptions upon
which there are causal relations between cause and effect. It touched on the
problem associated with the idea of necessary connection and how humans came
about the formulation. In place of the problematic nature of the idea of necessary
connection, sufficient condition or sufficient reason has been adopted as a less
problematic phrase to capture what the conditions that are to be met before we
observe an effect or expect certain events to take place.
Omoregbe, J.I. (1996). Metaphysics Without Tears: a Systematic and Historical
Stumpf, S. E. (1994). Philosophy: History and Problems. N. Y. McGraw-Hill.
74
MODULE 11: THEORIES OF
TIME
Topics central to this module will include the following: Time and space,
consciousness; Time in various cosmologies (African, Western and Eastern);
Time, permanence and change; Temporality and Eternity. Thus, at the end of
this module students will be well acquainted with the metaphysical
discourses and debates around the theme of time and space. While this
objective may be quite broad and ambitious, the immediate interest is to
simply introduce the basics of the debate and expose the trajectories of how
these themes are conceptualized in the various cosmologies without
necessarily wading into so much details that is peculiarly and more
appropriately within the scope of philosophy of science.
Unit 1: Notions and Nature of Time and
Space
How is time and space to be conceived and understood has remained very
problematic in the history of (metaphysics) philosophy and other scientific
disciplines. While the pair has continued to intrigue scholars, we continue to
use these terms to capture our daily experiences of what happens in and
around our world/universe and our place in such events. The terms space
and time are not simple to define. It is also difficult to show what the real
meanings of the terms. The focus here is however to provide the
contributions of thinkers on what space and time in the context of
metaphysics mean and outline some of the implications. The approach
therefore will be expository.
1.0
Introducti
on
Time or space in ordinary parlance is not so problematic. For example, when
one is asked about what time of the day by tapping someone’s wrist warrants
the respondent simply checking his or her wristwatch to say what time it is.
With regards to the notion of space in common parlance, imagine a scenario
where one wants to board a vehicle from point A to point B. One flags down
a taxi to ask if there is still some space left in the vehicle in order to join the
vehicle. The driver responds by stating that the vehicle is filled up having on
boarded the maximum number of passengers that the vehicle can contain. It
implies there is not any more space left to contain the would-be traveler
from point A to point B in the said vehicle and so will not be able to join
the said vehicle. Another practical example is when one defines matter as
anything occupies space; say, a bag of rice weighing
25 kilos and the space it takes up in the entire storeroom. It implies other
things can no longer to put into the said storeroom because of lack of space.
In other words, the space has been taken up by the large 25kg bag of rice.
These examples seem self-evident and axiomatic in terms what time and
space connotes. However, when we enter into the realm of metaphysics,
the philosophical and scientific nature of the problem then emerges for us.
The study unit seeks to provide some basic characterization of the various
efforts and attempts to capture what space and time mean in the history of
metaphysics. It also examines some of the implications of the understanding
of space and time for consciousness. In addition the study unit will provide
brief survey of the various regional and contextual readings of time in
Western, African and Eastern cosmologies. Finally, it will touch upon the
notion of time, permanence and change as well as temporality and eternity.
2.0 Objectives of the
Study
The objectives of this study unit for the
students are:
a. to explain the notion of space and time;
b. to understand the nature of space and time;
c. to identify the basic characterization of time (and space) in
various cosmologies;
d. to underpin the import of the notion of time for concepts of
change, permanence, temporality and eternity.
3.0 Main
Content
3.1 Time and Space as a problem in
Metaphysics
Is it ever possible to imagine that there might have been a time before there
were any events and that there may eventually be time after which there will
be no events? Possibly yes, and if yes, then it is again possible to
contemplate same about space in the sense that there might have been
space with no objects – for time as well. These provocative remarks are
crucial in helping us to think deeply about how fundamental these terms are
for us. Can we fully ever fathom the whole gamut of the questions that such
reflections implicate? I think not. For example, what sort of thing is space
and what sort of thing is time? Do both terms mean the same thing or mean
different things? And whether we can conceptualize the full import of one
without the other is an example of such questions.
In some sense space and time have been conceptualized as comprising of
continua; that is, consists of continuous manifolds, positions in which can be
occupied by substances and events respectively, and which can have
existence in their own rights. Such a naturalistic view point obviously
creates some immediate problems associated with space and time in the
context of metaphysics. It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions
that events and processes are to be seen as taking place after each other
and substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
In the classical era, the relational perspective dominated the understanding of
space and time. In this perspective, the idea of void was used to capture the
notion of space to describe intervals between bodies in which there are no
bodies. These thinkers viewed the place of a thing in terms of the containing
body of that thing, that is, in terms of the relation between the thing
and whatever it is in. Accordingly, Aristotle uses place interchangeably
for space as the limit of the first unmoving containing body. Thus, spatial
and temporal intervals are potentially divisible infinitely but time intervals
can also be potentially infinitely extendable; since time is the measure of
motion in respect of before and after and there always has been and always
will be motion or change. Since time is closely associated with motion or
change means that there are at least event-less intervals between events.
This relational view did not end in the classical era as we see in Leibniz
during the modern period who postulated that space is an order of
coexistence as time is an order of successions. Space itself is an ideal thing
so that space out of the world must be imaginary; similarly for time. Space is
simply that which comprehends all places; it is that wherein the mind
conceives the application of relations. Also in Locke, we see the same trend
whereby, space and time are extrapolatable from spatial and temporal
relations having these properties, which we perceive as obtaining between
things and events. In Newton, however, we find that both space and time are
considered to have their own natures, without any dependence on anything
else, and they constitute continua such that one part of either continuum is
indistinguishable from another such part. Any differences that we take to
exist are due to the things that occupy places and events that happen at
moments; they are not due to space and time themselves. For, according to
him, Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another
name is called duration. This is so because Absolute space, in its own
nature, without relation to anything external remains always similar and
immovable, (Hamlyn 127-129).
What are the implications of the discussion of these themes so far? One
major problem with space and time is whether space and time have
properties of their own independent of the objects and events that they
contain. More so, when space and time are conceived as merely relations,
it does definitely lead to a problem
about what it is that is thereby related? According to Hamlyn (131) any
extended object is spatial, and its spatiality must on the relational view of
space, consist in relations between elements. But if those elements are
themselves spatial the same argument must apply to them; the only way to
stop the regress that is generated by that is to suppose that the objects related
by spatial relations are themselves non- spatial.
Kant rejects the relational view that underpinned the Newtonian and
Leibnizian characterization of space and time. In its place therefore, he
argued that the notion of forms of intuition is paramount in understanding
what is space and time. Space and time make up forms having an intimate
connection with perception and have no place outside that context. To speak
of a form of intuition is to make reference to the form which perception or
objects of perception must take. They are not merely intuitions as they
themselves are a priori intuitions. To put the matter in another way, to think
of space and time is not to think merely of ways of thinking about the world;
it is to think of how the world actually is. More ever, space and time are
something actual, not merely possibilities, so that, whether or not they
have physical properties in their right, they are themselves something in
their own right. In that case, it is in virtue of space and time being what they
are that things and events can stand in the kind of spatial and temporal
relations that they do. Space and time do not consist of either actual or
possible relations between things and events; they determine what relations
of that kind are possible. Thus, conceived, it is logically possible that space
and time should have existed without things and events to occupy them
While we can quickly talk about the passage of time without
something particularly similar or more appropriate to speak of space in the
same manner; time also has one dimension while space is often
characterized as three dimensional with physical events presupposing both
space and time whereas mental events presuppose directly only time; the
following propositions hold for both space and time; a). Space is not an
empirical concept which has been derived from outer experiences b). Space
is a necessary a priori representation which underlies all outer intuitions
c). Space is not a discursive or general concept of relations of things in
general d). Space is represented as an infinite manifold.
3.4 Time - space and consciousness
We think of ourselves and the role we play in the universe in manners that
suggests that we think of ourselves or possibly events as moving from the
past, through the present, into the future or of events as coming towards us
from the future and receding behind us into the past. Another way of
regarding the matter is to think of events as progressively coming into being,
and this has become known as temporal becoming. There is however
controversy whether it is objective or subjective.
3.5 Time in Other cosmologies
What we have tried to capture above can of course be simply the mode and
manner in which space and time is conceived within the Western
philosophical tradition or cosmology to be somewhat linear consisting of the
past, present and future and so would not need repeating here. Hence, the
next two sections will highlight briefly the basic thinking of how time is
understood in the African and Eastern cosmologies.
3.5.1 Time in African worldview
There has been quite a host of ways to describe and capture the notion of
time in the African context which is of course problematic in many ways
that space would not allow us to explore here. Suffice it to note that it is key
to point out that there is the traditional African society and the contemporary
African society; the former is peculiarly uninfluenced by western thinking
and the latter with all the trappings of western influences. This notion of
time in an African context is different from the notorious idea of “African
time”. This notorious phrase has pejorative connotations by stating of the
poor attitude and tardiness of Africans which generally is predicated by a
relaxed attitude to time keeping. In this brief part of the section, the effort is
not to debate the foregoing notorious phrase but to highlight what the
metaphysical outlook to time is within the context of African
thought/cosmology.
According to Mbiti, time in African traditional thought is generally two
dimensional – having a long past very often associated with significant
events and the idea of a present with the idea of the long future missing or
absent given that time is composed of a series of events. This
characterization was argued by Mbiti in his popular text, “African
Religion and Philosophy”, where he examines the East African context and
deploys the Swahili terms of sasa (now-existential period) and zamani
(encompasses the past and the lived experiences of the present or about to
happen experiences of the present). This view has severely been criticized by
a host of scholars to the extent that to defend the Mbitian notion of time as
representative of the notion of time in African thought would be a great
disservice to African philosophy, a course students will encounter at some
point in their programme for the award of Degree in the discipline. It must be
said, however, that one can safely state as Iroegbu (60) that Africans have a
more relative, natural, humane and co-existential perception of time. They
have close ties to the land as life-means and ancestral contact locus. One’s
past and one’s future are existential, linked at times to the curious level of
predestination and mediocrity. They are more tied to the rhythm of nature.
Against this backdrop, the cyclical notion of time is not entirely absent in
some African cosmologies. For example, the abiku phenomenon and the
doctrine of reincarnation seem to suggest a cyclical notion of time, which
seems not fully developed but through further research can be tasked to
exhume via ethno-philosophical conversations. Students can be encouraged
to share their various cultural worldviews of these themes as a way of
also challenging students to begin to see around them possible areas where
some of these deeply abstract reflections can be contextualized within their
own cultural milieu. Again, there is also the phenomenological experience
that seems to suggest one sees a cycle of repetition of similar or nearly
closely related scenarios that flashes through one’s virtual consciousness do
seem to suggest a cyclical notion of time or events or circumstances
happening around us and in the world.
3.5.2 Time in Eastern Thought/Cosmology
Against the backdrop of the universal experience of the reality of time,
cultures and people of the East and South Asia to include; India, Japan,
China, Korean and others have a well-developed and pervasive system
of thought that not only addresses time and how time is understood in their
cultures but also what the entire universe means to them and their attempt to
produce a well-documented account of these events. Rather than the popular
sense of linear notion of time in Western thought, the model of time popular
in Eastern philosophy is fundamentally cyclical the past is also the future,
the future is also the past, the beginning also the end. The notion of the cycle
of life – birth, death and rebirth or the cycle of seasons— are all part of the
broader cycle of existence. Thus, within such a comprehensive system of
thought, whereas space and time are rather abstract in the western
thought, in the Eastern thought, they are quite concrete experiences and
realities in human culture as everything is deeply related and connected
with everything else in the entire universe.
3.6 Time, permanence and change
Time, permanence and change are part of the activities and features
associated with the universe and all its constitutive elements including the
human person. Whereas things happen and things or events occur that bring
about the process of change some other aspects seem to remain in the state
of permanence. The problem then becomes how one can account for both
the fact of permanence as well as change at the same time in the universe.
3.7 Temporality and Eternity
The terms temporality and eternity are not easy terms to be given concise
definitions that can convince many people given that the fundamental nature
of the universe in respect of its origin and the explanatory account seem
rather problematic and controversial. Thus, the kind of meaning these terms
evoke can only make sense when one settles the prior question of the proper
account of the question of origin and nature of the universe in terms of
whether the universe has a beginning and an end in view towards which the
order of the universe is tended. For theistic metaphysicians who take for
granted the created order; that is the universe to be created by God, these
terms may not be as problematic as they would for those who do not share
the same intellectual or religious orientation and convictions.
Iroegbu (112) writes that if spirituality places God outside space or place,
Eternity places Him outside time. He is thus supra-temporal, existing in
the everlasting now; that is, God’s eternity as endless duration without
change or end. It follows that the term eternity is in reference to time frame
that refers to the idea that suggests without a beginning and an end unlike
what is everlasting (that which may have a beginning but does not have an
end). However, it is important to state briefly also that there are some
materialist view of the world that sees everything especially the world as
totally matter which can neither be created nor destroyed (the world is said
to be eternal, as it has always been in existence and will continue to be) and
so the eternal characterization can also be used to qualify such a view of the
universe. Thus, the eternity of God flows directly from His essence as
infinite. From the theological understanding of eternity as proposed above,
the term temporality when contrasted with it can then be said to be what is
time bound; in terms of it having a beginning and an end. In other words,
something that is within time and measurable to the extent that its beginning
and end point can be ascertained. For example, the being of the human
person or other living things that come into material existence at some point
and then dies at a time of its end.
3.0
Summ
ary
This study unit has examined the notions of space and time. It began by
presenting how less problematic these terms are in common parlance. The
unit provided a historical account of the contributions of thinkers on the
nature of space and time.
It ran though the classical era to the modern era. In doing this, the relational
perspective that perceives space and time to be relationally meaningful
which influenced the thoughts of some modern philosophers were
highlighted. It also identified the Kantian view that considers space and time
as forms of intuition. In fact, intuitively a priori as a much more
comprehensive account than the relational model by highlighting the
implications of what the Kantian notion achieves; specifically, by facilitating
the possibility of thinking beyond and before space and time. In addition, the
study unit also touched upon the various notions of time in various
cosmologies; specifically, the Western, African and Eastern cosmologies.
Some general characteristics of these cosmologies include: the linear notion
very much present in the western cosmological thought. That is, Westerners
seem to have a theoretical, mathematical, utilitarian concept and deployment
of space and time. The cyclical character of time as replete in Eastern
cosmology and slightly echoed in African cosmologies was described. In
African cosmologies there seem to some attunement to nature and the events
associated with the existential experiences of nature. Examples, of such can
be seen in the kind of names given to people during wars, famine or reign of
particular kings in various African societies.
4.0
Conclusi
on
The study unit examined space and time as an intriguing problem in
metaphysics that also is of interest to experts in the sciences as well. It
deployed the exploratory and exhumation methods in providing an account
of space and time in the history of philosophy. It began by looking at the
relational notion of space and time and how this same way of understanding
space and time was taken over in the modern period. It was Kant’s
intervention that considered space and time as radical forms of intuition that
gave a reading of space and time in ways that both could exist without any
form of temporal or spatial relations. It also examined the terms of eternity
and temporality to mean outside of time and space yet exist of necessity
(God) and the idea of contingency to give a sense of meaning to the
temporality when used in reference to reality itself different from our way of
characterizing reality.
6.0 References and Further
Readings
Hamlyn, D. (1995). Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Mbiti, J. S. (1969). African Religion and Philosophy. London:
Heinemann. Parrat, J. (1977). Time in traditional African thought,
Religion, 7:2, 117-126.
Iroegbu, P. (1995). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri:
International
Van Inwagen, P. (2015). Metaphysics, fourth edition. Colorado: Westview
Press.
References and Further
Reading
Aja, E. (1996). What is Philosophy? An African Inquiry. Enugu:
Donze
Publications.
Aja, E. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Publications.
Carroll, J. W. &Markosian, N. (2010).An Introduction to Metaphysics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamlyn, D. W. (1984). Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Heidegger, M. (1961).An Introduction to Metaphysics, tr. Ralph
Maheim. Garden
City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Iroegbu, P. (1996). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri:
International
Kabuk, V. S. (2017). A Fundamental Approach to Philosophy of Education.
Port
Harcourt: HOI Publishing
Company.
Kim, J., Sosa, E., &Rosenkrantz, G. S. (2009).A Companion to
Metaphysics, Second Edition.Chichester: WILEY Blackwell
Publishing Limited.
Le Poidevin, R et al. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics.
London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Loux, M. J & Zimmerman, D. W. (Eds.) (2003).The Oxford
Handbook of
Loux, M. J. & Zimmerman, D. W (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford
Handbook of
Mbiti, J. S. (1969). African Religion and Philosophy. London: Heinemann.
Munford, S. (2012).Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
Ney, A. (2014). Metaphysics: An Introduction. London & New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Omoregbe, J.I. (1993). Knowing Philosophy. Lagos: Joja Educational
Research and Publishers Ltd.
Omoregbe, J.I. (1996). Metaphysics Without Tears: A Systematic and
Historical
Omoregbe, J.I. (1997). A Simplified History of Western Philosophy.
Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishing Limited.
Omoregbe, J.I. (2001). Knowing Philosophy: A General Introduction.
Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishing Limited.
Onyeocha, I. M. (2009).Introfil: A First Encounter with Philosophy,
Second
Edition. Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy. Parrat, J. (1977). Time in traditional African thought,
Religion, 7:2, 117-126.
Rea, M. (2014).Metaphysics: the Basics. London & New York: Routledge,
Taylor
& Francis.
Stumpf, S.E. (1994). Philosophy: History and Problems. N. Y.
McGraw-Hill. Unah, J. I. (2010). Metaphysics. Lagos: University of
Lagos Press.
Unah, J. I. (1996, reprinted 1998). Metaphysics, Phenomenology and
African
Philosophy. Ibadan: Hope Publications.
Van Inwagen, P. (2015). Metaphysics, fourth edition. Colorado: Westview
Press.
Online
Resource
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://Plato.Stanford.edu) is an
online resource of substantial entries that typically have helpful
bibliographies. Entries undergo periodic revision and update.
91

CRS861 Advance Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRS861 Advance Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRS861 Advance Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES

COURSE TITLE: ADVANCE METAPHYSICS

COURSE TITLE: ADVANCED METAPHYSICS

COURSE WRITER(S) Dr Anthony Okpanachi

YEAR OF REVIEW: 2021

Unit II: Idealism

Egbeke, A. (2001). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Enugu: Donze Publications

MODULE 3: CONCEPTS OF NATURE, REALITY AND THOUGHT.

You might also like