Category talk:Metaphysics

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Meanings and definition[edit]

Following up on a discussion at Talk:Crystal power, and a distinction made in the Metaphysics article, what would folks think of seperating the philosophically metaphysical claims (that is, within traditional academic philosophy) from the new age meaning of metaphysics which are not recognized as metaphysics within academic circles? --TeaDrinker 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in making such a distinction.

That said: there's a difference between something being recognized as metaphysical and something being argued to be "nonmetaphysical". The former comes from a lack of interest in examining kooks, the latter from principled argument. Presuming the former gets us nowhere and is uninformative, but if you can find some scholarly consensus with respect to the latter, then it might provide motivation for further distinctions. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following this line of reasoning further; could two subcategories be considered for this article: Metaphysics (Philosophy)... and Metaphysics (New Age)... to further subdivide the numerous titles in the Metaphysics cat? I can see that most of the listings will be placed under a Metaphysics (Philosophy) section.

In such a case that the Metaphysics cat was subdivided; would the Lizard King article, for example, be labelled Philosophy or New Age?Drakonicon 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The separation is a good idea; however, I could not support a category called Metaphysics (Philosophy). Rather, the new-age stuff should be moved to a new category, say: Metaphysics (New Age), and the philosophy left in this main category. Banno 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think splitting the category is a good idea: there doesn't seem to be any overlap between uses of the term 'metaphysics' in philosophy and in new age thought. I also agree with Banno that the split should be 'metaphysics' for the philosophy articles and 'metaphysics (new age)' for the new age articles, although I admit to professional bias. In answer to Drakonicon: Lizard King doesn't have anything to do with (the discipline of) philosophy, so it goes in new age if it needs a metaphysics tag at all. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that Lizard King would be part of the proposed Metaphysics (New Age) cat: I just was trying to draw the link between the Lizard King article and its placement in the Metaphysics cat. One reason might be because Morrison was reported by Danny Sugarman in No One Here Gets Out Alive, as having read Nietzsche and Aldous Huxley. Tenuous link, I know. Anyway, lets start making the Metaphysics (New Age) cat? I might have a go at it. There will be some doubling up of links between the Metaphysics cat and Metaphysics (New Age) cat initially. To make thpage an actual Category.. and not simply an Article.. I have no concrete idea, but here goes. Someone help me with the code to make it a Category, if that someone would be so kind! Metaphysics (New Age). Drakonicon 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that category was created correctly... --TeaDrinker 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links[edit]

I believe that Postmodernism should be included here. Postmodern literature and art (especially, the way Derrida, and Foucault perform their 'work' is deeply literary and philosophical, often reaching into metaphysical abstractions of thought.Drakonicon 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but perhaps postmodernism should have its own page. After all it is a rather big issue Dawn Abend 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism is certainly an important issue, but I think calling it 'metaphysics' is stretching the notion to breaking point: metaphysics means a a lot more, and is a lot more specific, than just being literary and philosophical, or reaching into abstractions of thought. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-ethics[edit]

I am taking Meta-ethics out of Metaphysics. It is a branch of philoophy on its own. It only belongs in Metaphysics in the sense that most branches of philosophy belong in metaphysics - e.g. philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc. If you really dsiagree, revert and I won't protest (well, not on the computer!) Anarchia 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think about 7 of the 27 articles in the category should not be in metaphysics, the other ones fit. My only concern is getting a bot to tag these with the metaphysics=yes tag. It's so few articles it doesn't matter. Gregbard 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel/Heidegger/Aristotle[edit]

Kant is in this category, as is Descartes. Shouldn't Hegel, Heidegger and Aristotle also be in it? If people are, then three of the most critical commentators on Metaphysics should be up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.12.193 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category structure[edit]

I noticed that Category:Metaphysics is a subcategory of Category:Reality, which is a sub-subcategory of Category:Metaphysics. This seems wrong. bd2412 T 16:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remove philosophical theory category[edit]

I remove because metaphysique category isn't a philosophical theory's subcategory.Zipodu (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]