It might be because I’ve been talking a lot about philosophy lately, but I’ve been getting into a lot of philosophical discussions, sometimes from a theological bent. Whenever I question the validity of the supernatural or miracles or anything like that, I’m likely to get a claim of “but metaphysics!”

Sorry, metaphysics is bullshit.

The dictionary defines metaphysics as “the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.” Generally speaking, that’s fine, but if you really dive into it, there’s an awful lot of noodling your navel nonsense there. For most of those things, there is no way to actually reach any demonstrable conclusions rationally. It’s all just make believe.

Funny, lots of philosophers and pretty much all theists don’t like that much.

The simple fact is, religion has always operated through “metaphysics” even when that term wasn’t in use. It’s wishful thinking, based on emotional comfort, wrapped up in nonsensical ideas, because… why the hell not? It’s not fact-based, it’s feeling-based and therein lies the problem.

You are perfectly welcome to think about “being” and “knowing”, but depending on the specific questions being asked, there may  very well not be any coherent answers. Some people can’t handle that. That’s why they made up gods in the first place, to answer all of the questions to which they had no available answers. Why does the sun come up? God! Why do the seasons change? God! Why is there thunder and lightning? God! Except as we found the actual answers to those things, tons of people were already emotionally attached to the false ideas of gods and refused to give them up. They invented bald rationalizations for why it really was their imaginary friends, even though the actual evidence proved otherwise.

Some people are really stupid.

Unfortunately, when it comes to philosophy, that’s often what’s going on as well. I got into an argument with a philosophy fanboy who kept arguing for the ideal of philosophy. It’s supposed to be better than that! Sure, but in reality, it rarely ever is. You can’t confuse the ideal for the actual. Why does that happen? Because there are people out there with an emotional attachment to the idea of philosophy. They see it through starry eyes. That’s just rarely how it works out in the real world.

When people start to talk about metaphysics, I have to ask them how they got there. Specifically, I mean. Staring off into space and thinking really hard, that doesn’t mean anything. The fact is, this kind of philosophical thinking really doesn’t get you anywhere useful. It doesn’t get you anywhere remotely close to objective truth. That’s all I care about. If you don’t have truth, you’re wasting my time.

Yet there really seems to be no way to get to truth through that kind of philosophy. How do you do any independent research? You can’t. You just think about stuff until you like the results and then pretend it means something. That’s how philosophy has worked throughout history. You can’t get to anyone who actually did any coherent research in the field of metaphysics. How would you even go about doing that?

No, it’s all “a guy said a thing” and then some other guy liked the first guy’s ideas and said something else and after a long game of telephone, you have modern people thinking they’ve actually got something coherent.

Says who?

We’re still back at the beginning, with people who just don’t like not knowing. Well too bad! It’s why discussions go absolutely nowhere. Take talks about moral realism, for instance. Not one adherent can provide any reason why they think morals are objective and mind-independent. Not one, at least none that I’ve ever run into. They just like the idea! They’re doing the same thing that the religious have done for centuries, just without the religious verbiage.  The second that you back them into a corner and expect them to come with some kind of evidence to support their claims, they can’t do it. The only thing they have are the claims. That’s nothing to be proud of.

In reality, it doesn’t matter what anyone says. It matters what they can demonstrate. “I saw Bigfoot!” Great, come on back with a body, or at the very least, some unambiguous pictures, then we’ll talk. I want genetic samples, not your say-so. Put up or shut up. The same goes for philosophy, especially when it’s trying to address the real world. How do you know that and how have you tested it? Not, who have you talked to and bought into their bullshit. Come back with something tangible. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

And I know what a lot are going to say. “You just don’t understand!” Yeah, actually, I do. I’m just not falling for the standard philosophical party line, any more than I fall for calls of faith from the religious. Those things are pointless. Come back when you can do better. Philosophy, in a lot of ways, works just like religion, for the same reasons. It’s not really concerned with truth, it’s concerned with comfort. It wants to reach a point where the adherents can feel good about their beliefs, whether they’re defensible or not. Like the religious, the philosophers won’t acknowledge that because then, their entire worldview comes tumbling down in a cascade of irrelevancy. It’s got to be true because they desperately want it to be true.

That doesn’t make it true and truth is all that matters.