Talk:Metametaphysics

Older comments

"Does every event have a cause?"

That's not a metaphysical question. It was a physical question, and it has been answered by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. See also Casimir effect and Bell's theorem.

"When do several things make up a single bigger thing?"

That's not metaphysics, it's not philosophy, it's just language. It's the question of which assemblages we call things in which language. Case in point: in English, things like scissors, glasses, trousers/pants etc. are pairs; in German, they're single things (for most people most of the time, and increasingly so). The question has purely descriptive answers.

David Marjanović (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it.Greg Bard (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

David, why are you choosing to argue with a published expert on some subject, about the nature of that subject, on the talk page of an encyclopedia article about that very subject? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not settle the event/cause question. As it happens, questions about composition are discussed extensively by philosophers, and treated as falling under the purview of metaphysics. Your position of the status of such questions is in fact a substantive metametapyhysical thesis, as the Manley quotation goes on to indicate: 'are these answers substantive or just a matter of how we use words?' ----Aisiantonas

Request for a formal rather than speedy deletion process

I don't see a need for expedited removal of this stub. Let's see what a formal deletion request produces. Perhaps some improvement will result. Brews ohare (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article/stub so far is only one lengthy quotation from the book, so it does apparently need to be improved. But I don't see a need for complete removal of the item from WP, since the book deals with the foundations of Metaphysics AND Ontology, or rather Ontology as encompassing metaphysics? warshy^talk 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't build an article around a single book. It needs proper sourcing, or the argument that the book is notable enough for its own article ----Snowded ^TALK 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for formal deletion by Snowded: See this. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for merger with Metaphysics

Metametaphysics is not a main branch of philosophy unto itself, like meta-ethics. It's a branch of metaphysics, and it's not an extremely active current area of research, so this article should be merged with Metaphysics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.m.p.tomaszewski (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can it be a branch of metaphysics? Wouldn't that be like saying science theory is a (branch of) science? David Marjanović (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's like saying science theory theory falls under science theory (or that meta-meta-ethics, meta-meta-meta-ethics, etc. are all just more meta-ethics).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat surprisingly, I agree with Christopher. Although it's a pretty active area of research, I don't believe it warrants its own article. Much better to fold it into metaphysics. ----Aisiantonas Themes of this article folded into Metaphysics#The_Nature_of_Metaphysics, using all new content. ----Aisiantonas