Is metaphysics (the study of the ultimate foundation of reality) useful? I will argue that a substantive part of the literature is not - or what we call analytic metaphysics. Here, philosophers focus largely on pure armchair analysis, engaged in trying to understand the nature of reality by investigated their own intuitions.

What may strike some of my readers, most of whom have never studied philosophy, as a bold assertion is in fact a widely shared view among philosophers who regard much of traditional analytic metaphysics as a pure form of castle-building in the sky, conducted from a philosophical armchair with little attachment to reality.

Yet one may ask: if many philosophers think so, why do they not call out that part of their discipline? The answer is that some do, though infrequently.

When asked by Richard Marshall whether analytic metaphysics has become redundant, the economist and philosopher Don Ross responded in just this manner:

“It’s worse than redundant. In trying to discover general truths about reality that are independent of science, it implements a counter-Enlightenment project. James and I argue that it is a barrier to knowledge.”

Don Ross is best known........

© Psychology Today