Show Less
Restricted access

Physics without Metaphysics?

With an Appraisal by Prof. Saju Chackalackal

Raphael Neelamkavil

This study discusses the substance-tradition from Aristotle to Kant, Gödel, Quine, Strawson, Armstrong and others, the concept of matter and causation in quantum physics, Being-thinking from Aristotle to Heidegger, and system-building from Plato to Whitehead. It synthesizes the Kantian phenomena-noumena, extends the Quinean ontological commitment, creates a Gödelian foundationalist truth-probabilism, relativizes the Whiteheadian actual entity, extends the Aristotelian-Heideggerian Being to a nomic-nominal, verbal-processual To Be and overhauls perspectival-absolutist, non-foundationalist and relativist concepts of Reality. The resulting scientific ontology is termed Einaic Ontology for maximalist, mutually collusive, categorial reasons. The Appendix explains Heidegger’s anthropologized Being as ontologically and cosmologically defective.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

An Appraisal of Physics without Metaphysics?

Extract



Prof. Saju Chackalackal

I

In the recent history of philosophy an obvious shift has taken place. While almost all philosophers attempted to address the perennial questions that intrigued humanity from its inception by way of formulating variously rationally consistent systems of thought – either by focusing on the object or the subject, as the case may be – a number of prominent thinkers have questioned the validity of such systematisations, as no system comes up neutrally. They are convinced, for example, that the so-called a priori is no more completely a priori. In fact, there are many factors that have colluded to give rise to anything that is said to be purely rational. Indeed, human reason itself is said to be the product of myriad influences, spread through the whole history of human existence. The trend, therefore, is to challenge and overthrow all systems that have been accepted as valid in providing answers to the perennial questions, and to move beyond the boundaries of systems with the hope of striking a better understanding or grasp of reality. Though this deal seems to be quite captivating, especially among the neophytes, the fundamental issue continues to haunt us: Can the human mind understand without a framework suitable to its nature? Or, in other words, is it possible for us to understand something in an absolute vacuum? Can reason try to understand the inner recesses of reality – which, in the traditional understanding, requires a move from physics to metaphysics...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.