Conee's Definition of Metaphysics

The purpose of this essay is to examine Earl Conee's attempt to define metaphysics from the 10^th Chapter of his book “The Riddles of Existence”.

To begin with Connee does not give us a definition that he attempts to build into a comprehensive definition. Instead he gives us a number of definitions that he then attempts to refute. So we must examine these definitions and Conee's attempt at refutation. Conee's attempt at refutation always take the form of modus tollens. Modus tollens is a logical formula that takes the form of “if P then 2. Not P. Therefore not 2. Conee never varies from this formula. We shall examine and evaluate Conee's method of doing philosophy. So let us move to a definition and refutation.

The first definition Conee uses is Aristotle's. That the subject matter of metaphysics is existence. Then immediately Conee goes for the refutation. That we imagine a balloon that does not exist and then imagine the balloon existing. Conee then asserts that it makes no difference. He claims we add nothing by adding existence to the object of the balloon. With this trite refutation Conee seems to think he has proved his point; afterall he has stuffed a complex problem into his preferred method of dealing with experience: modus tollens. The trouble is that anyone that thinks about this example for more than a moment can clearly see it is wrong. It makes a great deal of difference if we add the quality of existence to an imagined object. There have been huge and destructive wars over this distinction. One only has to remember any holy war in human history that people were killed over whether Jesus had a divine nature or not. Another example would be the persecutions of religion, minorities over their refusal to accept some patriot doctrine as having existence. Of course Conee never thinks about such matters; we will examine why later.

Then Conee tries to assert that investigating the nature of free will, time, or the study of universals does not involve existence. Conee seems to forget the reason metaphysics investigates these things is to find if they exist and hear they interact with existing entities. So again Conee's refutation proves shallow. Next Conee wants to attack the distinction between appearance and reality. His refutation is that everything actual exists. Of course Conee in his shallow method never bothers to define actual. I guess Conee thinks when he sees his reflection in a mirror it is another Conee; maybe in another possible world? Conee never brings up the status of illusion. Again this makes his argument or explanation of appearance and reality worthless for a serious investigator.

Conee now suggests that physics does the work of metaphysics. So there is no such study of metaphyiscs. Conee neglects to mention that physics only studies one aspect of entities; that of force and resistance in a quantitative manner. Physics has nothing to say if things are harmful or beautiful. Whether or not they are beautiful or ugly, or what makes objects subject to quantitative analysis or qualitative analysis. O f course none of this really matters to Conee.

In the last refutation of metaphysics; Conee attempts to substitute logic and mathematics for metaphysics. Conee seems to have a childlike faith in logic and mathematics. He never considers the origin and development of logic or mathematics. He just accepts on faith that mathematics and logic are the ultimate explanatory studies. It would be interesting to know if Conee thinks there is some “metaphysical” reason that the truths of logic and mathematics dwell in. Like always, Conee in his shallow method has no answer, and probably, the question never occurred to him. Conee is a man who never met an unquestioned presupposition he did not accept.

Conee never takes up R.G. Cellingwood's definition of metaphysics as examining our deepest presuppositions. Probably because he could not fit into his only structure of dealing with experience: modus tollens. For the same reason he never takes up Whitehead's and other modern metaphysicians claims that metaphysics is a general interpretation of experience. This is because Conee is a dogmatist. There is only one way to deal with experience and that is modus tollens. This is why when reading Conee one is always under the impression of watching a man try to force square pegs into round holes.

Before moving to our final evaluation of Conee and his methods, let us define the central problem of metaphysics. The central question of metaphysics is, always has been, and shall always be: what is the place of consciousness on the cosmos? Whether one is a theist and believes in a top down  paradigm with God at the apex, or one is an atheist trying to understand how consciousness evolved from matter. All other definitions and questions of metaphysics revolve around this question. How the central question is answered determines the answer to the other questions of metaphysics.

Now we can evaluate Earl Conee, and why he cannot grasp the definition of metaphysics. Conee is a conceptual analyst. This means he firmly stands in the analytic tradition of philosophy. The analytic tradition has dominated the academic chairs in English speaking countries for almost a century. The analytic movement tries to deny that there is such a study of metaphysics. They even deny they have a metaphysics, but of course they do. The metaphysics of the analytic movement is determined by their answer to what we have called the central question of metaphysics: what is the place of consciousness in the cosmos. Ina n ironic way their answer is an analog of George Berkeley's subjective idealism. Berkeley in trying to get rid of the dualism of John Locke decided to get rid of one side of the equation of mind and matter. Berkeley got rid of matter. The analytic movement has taken the other option; they have gotten rid of or denied the existence of mind. They seek to deny mental states or mental processes.

This is why Conee has adopted the single method of  of modus tollens for dealing with all experience. He has replaced an inquisitive inquiring mind with a dumb, repetitive completely mechanical process. There are no unexamined presuppositions, no discoveries to be made, because there is no consciousness. There is only dumb mechanical repetition.

Many academic professors of philosophy have bemoaned the fact that most people have no interest in philosophy anymore. If they truly want the answer why, all they have to do is look into the mirror. The educated and uneducated public seem to realize instinctively that analytic philosophy is a dead end If philosophy is to make any progress or survive in the future, people like Conee must be seen as what they are. A dead end. Analytic philosophy has had a century to prove its worth. It is now time to judge analytic philosophy a failure and move on.