<h1>What is "metaphysics"? </h1>
Nietzsche said: "Learning multiple languages fills memory with words, not facts and ideas." "This is the biggest disadvantage of learning multiple foreign languages. Mastering multiple languages only indicates that the speaker can express the same object in different ways, but it does not mean that he understands that object, just as the old driver knows how many routes are on the way to the end, but he is not necessarily familiar with the place that is the end. And multiple expressions often interfere with our understanding of objects, and sometimes hurt our native language.
For example, Tetsujiro Inoue translates metaphysical chinese as "metaphysics" and Yan Fu as "metaphysics." Neither translation can accurately explain the meaning of metaphysical, but instead confuses Zhu Xi's "metaphysics" with Wang Bi's "metaphysics", hurting the mother tongue. For example, the French materialists of the eighteenth century all opposed the metaphysics of Descartes and Leibniz, but the domestic textbooks called them "metaphysical materialists", and this "metaphysical materialist" against "metaphysics" seemed very different and contradictory, in fact, they should be called "mechanical materialists". To this end, it is necessary to clarify what exactly Westerners call "metaphysics"?
For us, clinging to word disputes is meaningless, the so-called "forgetfulness", as long as we know the content of metaphysical, we can understand the meaning of metaphysical. To understand the original content of metaphysical, we should start with Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Aristotle (384–322 BC)
<h1>The difference between experience and technology</h1>
In Aristotle's day, there was no scientific saying that people relied on feelings to know things, and various feelings were gathered together to eventually form memories. As memories continue to accumulate, experience emerges. For example, a craftsman who makes wheels, when he was a novice, was only shoddy under the guidance of the master, he observed the wheel with his eyes, his hands measured their size, and he used various senses to produce memories. Later, as the days accumulated, the impression of the wheel became deeper and deeper, and he gradually became a master craftsman, at which time we said that he was "experienced".
But experience knows only what it is but why it is, and it can only judge individual things and is difficult to generalize. The doctor can judge that A has certain symptoms, and it will be good to take this medicine, and he can also judge that B needs to take the same medicine based on similar symptoms. But this judgment is an individual judgment, and it shifts with each diagnosis. If the physician does not have an understanding of the common condition of A and B, does not make a general judgment, and discovers the cause of the disease, then every dose of medicine he prescribes is in danger of being used incorrectly. Because the patient is individual, the disease is universal. Good doctors know how to diagnose common diseases from individual patients, and then prescribe the right medicine; quack doctors are confused by the similarities and differences between different patients, can not find the root of the disease, and finally have to rely on experience to blindly guess the prescription.
Experience knows only what it is, and theory knows why it is so. Under the guidance of theory, technology is formed, and people who master technology are often more capable than people with only experience, because they can find out the causes and solve problems. Experience is only possible in a limited field, and once beyond that area, it will be helpless. The best builder can build a strong house by experience, but if he changes places and changes the geology and soil, he can no longer guarantee quality unless he accepts the leadership of an engineer. Moreover, the experience of the old builders cannot be passed on to others, but can only be accumulated by themselves. Theoretical techniques are different, and they can be taught among different groups of people.
<h1>What does philosophy study? </h1>
Most of the technology is practical, people through the senses to understand the phenomena of nature, and understand their causes, using their laws to improve production efficiency. These technologies are applied, and they make us aware of all kinds of things.
When the society developed and the idle class emerged, some people changed from seeking knowledge for practical purposes to seeking knowledge purely for the sake of seeking knowledge. On top of all the specific techniques, they built up some higher learning. For example, the monastic class in ancient Egypt, with the privilege of leisure, invented mathematics to study the supersensory knowledge of why 1+1 and 2.
In ancient Greece, there were also some people who studied the causes and principles of things, who studied not specific things, but all things, also called "all things." When we say that a person is "wise", this has two meanings, the first layer means that the person has an understanding of all things that can be known and is very knowledgeable; the other layer means that the person understands things that everyone finds difficult to know, very profound. In this world, there is nothing more knowledgeable than knowing the causes and principles of all things; the most profound is the ability to gain insight into the initial causes and first principles of things. Combine the two, and the wisest person is the one who recognizes the initial cause of everything.
Aristotle believed that the technology of the wise man is philosophy, which is different from ordinary technology, not the study of concrete things, but all things; not the exploration of a certain cause, but the first cause. The problems that philosophy confronts are ultimate problems. The origin of the universe, the beginning of the world, the origin of all things, what is the supreme good, these issues have little to do with our lives, and studying them has no practical significance, but only satisfies our own desire for knowledge.
Philosophy is like a luxury, when the spirit is satisfied, it develops to a higher stage. Becoming pure and free, we no longer seek wisdom for other benefits, and all thinking is out of love of wisdom, so philosophers are also called "lovers of wisdom." Aristotle said:
"A man who is somewhat confused and astonished, who is ashamed of his stupidity; who explores philosophy only to get rid of stupidity, and who, apparently, engages in scholarship for the sake of learning, and has no practical purpose."
All technology is inquiring into the causes of concrete things, while philosophy is inquiring into the initial causes of all things, so philosophy is the furthest away from sensory experience.
<h1>What is the relationship between philosophy and metaphysics? </h1>
The present metaphysics is a book composed of several essays, the title of which was not taken by Aristotle, nor did the ancients call his work "metaphysics." Hegel said: "We call it 'metaphysics', Aristotle called it τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά ('first philosophy')." This "first philosophy" of Aristotle is now generally called "ontology." That is to say, Aristotle considered τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά as the first, most important, purest part of philosophy; and the physics of things (natural philosophy) belonged to the "second philosophy", which is the relationship between philosophy and "metaphysics".
Of course, materialists disagree with this division, nature is a first thing, why should we add an illusory metaphysical world before nature? Man's knowledge is endless, so why should the metaphysician say that he is capable of studying the ultimate problem? Everything in the world is complex and diverse, where does the small human being have the self-confidence that he can exhaust "everything"? If philosophy is regarded as a luxury, as a speculative game, and does not care at all about its practicality, then what is the difference between this philosophy and qingtan? The philosophy that Aristotle spoke of was really just "speculative philosophy," in Feuerbach's words, "metaphysics is the secret psychology." ”
Aristotle said in Metaphysics:
"There is a science which studies 'existence is existence' and 'the nature of existence by nature'."
In Aristotle's view, metaphysics is the study of existence, and it has two core problems:
First, existence exists because everything has its own merits, so "What is this?" The "yes" is the most fundamental problem;
Second, existence has its own nature because of the nature of the proper endowment, so "how is this something?" The "how" is the second question.
Of course, these obscure questions are not problems at all, but only the talk of speculative philosophers. In nietzsche's words in Human, Too Human, they are "less important than knowledge of the chemical analysis of water in the eyes of a sailor in danger of a storm." ”
Nietzsche opposed the old metaphysics
<h1>The difference between Aristotle and the natural philosophers</h1>
Among the early greek natural philosophers, everyone had the idea that everything is composed of some element, which does not exist and has existed since ancient times. Although everything will be bad, the basic elements that make up them will not disappear, and this theory of using elements to explain the cause is "material cause". Thales uses water as a basic element, Anaximeni uses gas, Andraklitus says the world is a fire, and they all belong to the "single element theory."
In addition, Empedocle believes that the basic elements are divided into four kinds: water, fire, earth, and air, Liukibo and Democritus believe that they are atoms and voids, and Anaxagoras proposes that the aggregation and dispersion of differentiation is the cause of the birth and destruction of all things, and that differentiation exists forever, and they all belong to the "multi-element theory".
As for the proponents of "material causes", Aristotle argues that those who advocate the "single element theory" do not clearly state what exactly makes the elements able to evolve into all things, that is, the lack of explanation of the motives. And the "multi-element theory" people also did not say the problem clearly, they usually do not talk about the motive, only occasionally mentioned when the words are exhausted. That is to say, Aristotle believed that the "dynamic cause" was preceded by the "material cause" and was an earlier cause.
But if we read the fragments of the philosophers, we will find that Aristotle's evaluation was not impartial. In fact, most philosophers do not distinguish between "material causes" and "dynamic causes", they believe that the two are actually integrated. In their view, the reason for the movement of things is within or between elements, rather than finding an "immovable mover" (i.e., "Hidden Dreishi") outside the element as Aristotle did.
For example, Heraclitus said, "Everything arises through struggle," which is motivated by the struggle within the elements; Anaximes believes that cold and heat are the motives that cause the gas elements to be concentrated and diluted, and thus create all things; Empedocle believes that the contradiction between "love" and "hatred" divides and merges the four elements and constructs all things; Anaxagoras believes that the arrangement of "Nus" causes the elements to mix and separate in the vortex, and produce all things, which is the "cause of purpose".
But Aristotle did not seem to understand, but still asked:
"As for the question of change – where do things come alive? How to change? These thinkers, like everyone else, lazily omitted them. ”
In fact, natural philosophers have already replied that things change from their own elements, and the contradictions within the elements and the contradictions between the elements provide the impetus for the changes, and the dynamics are actually in the elements. Aristotle separated "matter" from "power", regarded "dynamic" as preceding "material", and then looked for a "formal cause". Natural philosophy, which had a materialistic tendency in antiquity, eventually turned to metaphysics.