Metaphysics (Dimensions of Philosophy) [Hardcover]

The introduction to the book lays the groundwork for philosophical thought. The author warns the reader not to expect to come out of this reading with any new "information" in the way a physics or biology textbook would teach you something concrete and almost unquestionable. Metaphysics is all about questions that dangle on the head of a pin, and the logic and methodologies one uses to sway the question to one side or the other (or maybe both or neither). The introduction basically admits that metaphysics is not a science and one shouldn't expect scientific knowledge from its study. This chapter alone should be required reading for all new philosophy students (I could have used it at the beginning of my studies some years back - it would have saved me a lot of second guessing and frustration).

The book is basically a whirlwind tour of philosophy that incorporates metaphysical questions and historical arguments. The monism of Spinoza and monism in general are examined. Bishop Berkeley's view of the external world (or lack of it) is put to various arguments. Anti-Realism is considered by the author almost incomprehensible (this chapter is pretty interesting). The classic ontological and cosmological arguments are picked apart (the notion of 'possible worlds' is also introduced) and finally subjects concerning human beings themselves are discussed at length: are we physical or non-physical things? Do we have free will? What is rationality? Each subject is put to the test: the author presents both pros and cons of all the positions one can take on the views, but ultimately the author has a side that he's arguing for. He's not shy about it, either, but he does present all sides fairly, not just the ones he's arguing for. Sometimes it's difficult to tell where the author will come out. In some chapters he seems to be arguing overwhelmingly for one position, when he is in fact for the opposite. This will keep you on your mental toes.

One almost shocking thing about this book is that the author presents his beliefs to the reader before he tears into the arguments. This is pretty rare in philosophy texts, and is very admirable considering that these confessed beliefs do not seem to interfere with the logic or reasoning of his arguments. I found that move pretty gutsy.

If you have a philosophy degree, likely the information in this book will not be new. Nonetheless, it is true that a degree is in no way required for reading this book. It was meant to be, as Van Inwagen says in the preface, "...a book that the - I hope not mythical - 'interested general reader' can pick up and read without guidance from an instructor." This doesn't mean that it's an easy read, quite the opposite. Following the logic of the arguments in many places takes patience. If you're new to some of the concepts, letting them soak in will also take some time. Regardless, this is probably the best introduction to the subject of metaphysics currently out there. Too bad about the cover; it makes the book like a dry overly academic textbook, which it's not. Even if you're skeptical about the value of philosophy, this book will give you something to chew on. But don't expect light and lazy rainy afternoon reading.

(1) What is the world really like? What are its most general features, and how is it organized? (2) Why is there a world at all? Why does the world have the general features and organization that it has? (3) What is our place in the world? How, if at all, do we fit into the scheme of things?

(These are paraphrases of questions that van Inwagen puts to the reader in the introduction of his book.)

The book can be seen as an introduction to metaphysical inquiry, by way of actual examples of how metaphysicians have attempted to answer these questions, and more specific questions that fall under them. Thus, van Inwagen examines, among other things, individuality (monism, nihilism, pluralism, Spinoza's & Bradley's arguments for monism), externality (Berkeley's subjective idealism), objectivity (Realism and anti-Realism), the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments, in several different forms, mind-body dualism and physicalism, free will vs. determinism, composition and persistence through time, and personal identity. In the course of this inquiry, van Inwagen makes no effort to maintain a fine neutrality; he forthrightly states his own opinions and argues for them, examines and criticizes opposing views and arguments, and offers his conclusions. On some matters, he finds no solutions, but only enduring mysteries. The book concludes with a meditation on mystery, and a suggestion that metaphysical problems may be beyond human power to solve (or resolve), and that it is no surprise if that is in fact the case. I happen to disagree with these sentiments, at least to a degree, and I certainly disagree with many of van Inwagen's conclusions. But that's the point. Learning metaphysics isn't learning a set of established facts, it is learning how to form something resembling an intelligent opinion on matters metaphysical. If, by the end of this book, you have learned enough to *disagree* with van Inwagen intelligently, the book has done its job. It certainly did for me.