Metaphysics

• Article

• Talk

• Read

• Edit

• View history

Tools

Appearance

hide

Text

Small
Standard

Large

Width

Standard

Wide

Color (beta)

Automatic

Light

Dark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Metaphysics (disambiguation).

 The beginning of Aristotle's Metaphysics, one of the
foundational texts of the discipline

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. It is
traditionally seen as the study of mind-independent features of the world, but some
theorists view it as an inquiry into the conceptual framework of human understanding.
Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to
suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry.

Metaphysics encompasses a wide range of general and abstract topics. It investigates the
nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division
into categories of being. An influential division is between particulars and universals.
Particulars are individual unique entities, like a specific apple. Universals are general
features that different particulars have in common, like the color red. Modal
metaphysics examines what it means for something to be possible or necessary.
Metaphysicians also explore the concepts of space, time, and change, and their
connection to causality and the laws of nature. Other topics include how mind and matter
are related, whether everything in the world is predetermined, and whether there is free
will.

Metaphysicians use various methods to conduct their inquiry. They typically rely on
rational intuitions and abstract reasoning but also include empirical approaches
associated with scientific theories. Due to the abstract nature of its topic, metaphysics has
received criticisms questioning the reliability of its methods and the meaningfulness of its
theories. Metaphysics is relevant to many fields of inquiry that often implicitly rely on
metaphysical concepts and assumptions.

The roots of metaphysics lie in antiquity with speculations about the nature and origin of
the universe, like those found in the Upanishads in ancient India, Taoism in ancient China,
and pre-Socratic philosophy in ancient Greece. During the subsequent medieval period in
the West, discussions about the nature of universals were influenced by the philosophies
of Plato and Aristotle. The modern period saw the emergence of various comprehensive
systems of metaphysics, many of which embraced idealism. In the 20th century, traditional
metaphysics in general and idealism in particular faced various criticisms, which prompted
new approaches to metaphysical inquiry.

Definition

Metaphysics is the study of the most elementary features of reality,

including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time,
change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind. It is one of the oldest
branches of philosophy.[1][a]

The precise nature of metaphysics is disputed and its characterization has changed in the
course of history. Some approaches see metaphysics as a unified field and give a wide-
sweeping definition by understanding it as the study of "fundamental questions a bout the
nature of reality" or as an inquiry into the essences of things. Another approach doubts that
the different areas of metaphysics share a set of underlying features and provides instead a
fine-grained characterization by listing all the main topics investigated by
metaphysicians. [4] Some definitions are descriptive by providing an account of what
metaphysicians do while others are normative and prescribe what metaphysicians ought to
do.[5]

Two historically influential definitions in ancient and medieval philosophy understand

metaphysics as the science of the first causes and as the study of being qua being, that is,
the topic of what all beings have in common and to what fundamental categories they
belong. In the modern period, the scope of metaphysics expanded to include topics such
as the distinction between mind and body and free will.[6] Some philosophers
follow Aristotle in describing metaphysics as "first philosophy", suggesting that it is the
most basic inquiry upon which all other branches of philosophy depend in some way. [7][b]
 Immanuel Kant conceived metaphysics from the
perspective of critical philosophy as the study of the principles underlying all human
thought and experience.

Metaphysics is traditionally understood as a study of mind-independent features of reality.

Starting with Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy, an alternative conception gained
prominence that focuses on conceptual schemes rather than external reality. Kant
distinguishes transcendent metaphysics, which aims to describe the objective features of
reality beyond sense experience, from the critical perspective on metaphysics, which
outlines the aspects and principles underlying all human thought and
experience. [9] Philosopher P. F. Strawson further explored the role of conceptual schemes,
contrasting descriptive metaphysics, which articulates conceptual schemes commonly
used to understand the world, with revisionary metaphysics, which aims to produce better
conceptual schemes. [10]

Metaphysics differs from the individual sciences by studying the most general and abstract
aspects of reality. The individual sciences, by contrast, examine more specific and
concrete features and restrict themselves to certain classes of entities, such as the focus
on physical things in physics, living entities in biology, and cultures in anthropology.[11] It is
disputed to what extent this contrast is a strict dichotomy rather than a gradual
continuum. [12]

Etymology

The word metaphysics has its origin in the ancient Greek words metá (μετά,
meaning 'after', 'above', and 'beyond') and phusiká (φυσικά), as a short form of ta metá ta
phusiká, meaning 'what comes after the physics'. This is often interpreted to mean that
metaphysics discusses topics that, due to their generality and comprehensiveness, lie
beyond the realm of physics and its focus on empirical observation. [13]

Alternatively, metaphysics may have received its name by a historical accident when
Aristotle's book on this subject, Metaphysics, was published. [14] Aristotle himself did not
use the term metaphysics but an editor of his works some two centuries later
(likely Andronicus of Rhodes) coined it for the title, presumably to indicate that this book
should be studied after Aristotle's book Physics: thus, literally 'after physics'. The term
entered the English language in the mid 1500s through the Latin word metaphysica.[13]

Branches

The nature of metaphysics can also be characterized in relation to its main branches. An
influential division from early modern philosophy distinguishes between general and
special or specific metaphysics. [15] General metaphysics, also called ontology,[c] takes the
widest perspective and studies the most fundamental aspects of being. It investigates the
features that all entities share and how entities can be divided into different categories.
Categories are the most general kinds, such as substance, property, relation,
and fact.[17] Ontologists research which categories there are, how they depend on one
another, and how they form a system of categories that provides a comprehensive
classification of all entities. [18]

Special metaphysics considers being from more narrow perspectives and is divided into
subdisciplines based on the perspective they take. Metaphysical cosmology examines
changeable things and investigates how they are connected to form a world as a totality
extending through space and time. [19] Rational psychology focuses on metaphysical
foundations and problems concerning the mind, such as its relation to matter and the
freedom of the will. Natural theology studies the divine and its role as the first cause. [19] The
scope of special metaphysics overlaps with other philosophical disciplines, making it
unclear whether a topic belongs to it or to areas like philosophy of mind and theology.[20]

Starting in the second half of the 20th century, applied metaphysics was conceived as the
area of applied philosophy examining the implications and uses of metaphysics, both
within philosophy and other fields of inquiry. In areas like ethics and philosophy of religion,
it addresses topics like the ontological foundations of moral claims and religious
doctrines. [21] Beyond philosophy, its applications include the use of ontologies in artificial
intelligence, economics, and sociology to classify entities. [22] In psychiatry and medicine, it
examines the metaphysical status of diseases.[23]

Meta-metaphysics[d] is the metatheory of metaphysics and investigates the nature and

methods of metaphysics. It examines how metaphysics differs from other philosophical
and scientific disciplines and assesses its relevance to them. Even though discussions of
these topics have a long history in metaphysics, meta-metaphysics has only recently
developed into a systematic field of inquiry. [25]

Topics

Existence and categories of being

Main articles: Existence and Theory of categories

Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general
concepts. [26] To exist means to be part of reality, distinguishing real entities from imaginary
ones. [27] According to a traditionally influential view, existence is a property of properties: if
an entity exists then its properties are instantiated. [28] A different position states that
existence is a property of individuals, meaning that it is similar to other properties, such as
shape or size. [29] It is controversial whether all entities have this property. According to
philosopher Alexius Meinong, there are nonexistent objects, including merely possible
objects like Santa Claus and Pegasus.[30][e] A related question is whether existence is the
same for all entities or whether there are different modes or degrees of existence. [31] For
instance, Plato held that Platonic forms, which are perfect and immutable ideas, have a
higher degree of existence than matter, which can only imperfectly reflect Platonic
forms.[32][f]

Another key concern in metaphysics is the division of entities into distinct groups based on
underlying features they share. Theories of categories provide a system of the most
fundamental kinds or the highest genera of being by establishing a comprehensive
inventory of everything. [34] One of the earliest theories of categories was proposed by
Aristotle, who outlined a system of 10 categories. He argued that substances (e.g., man
and horse), are the most important category since all other categories like quantity (e.g.,
four), quality (e.g., white), and place (e.g., in Athens) are said of substances and depend on
them.[35] Kant understood categories as fundamental principles underlying human
understanding and developed a system of 12 categories, divided into the four classes:
quantity, quality, relation, and modality. [36] More recent theories of categories were
proposed by C. S. Peirce, Edmund Husserl, Samuel Alexander, Roderick Chisholm, and E. J.
Lowe.[37] Many philosophers rely on the contrast between concrete and abstract objects.
According to a common view, concrete objects, like rocks, trees, and human beings, exist
in space and time, undergo changes, and impact each other as cause and effect. They
contrast with abstract objects, like numbers and sets, which do not exist in space and time,
are immutable, and do not engage in causal relations. [38]

Particulars
Particulars are individual entities and include both concrete objects, like Aristotle, the Eiffel
Tower, or a specific apple, and abstract objects, like the number 2 or a specific set in
mathematics. They are unique, non-repeatable entities and contrast with universals, like
the color red, which can at the same time exist in several places and characterize several
particulars. [39] A widely held view is that particulars instantiate universals but are not
themselves instantiated by something else, meaning that they exist in themselves while
universals exist in something else. Substratum theory, associated with John Locke's
philosophy, analyzes each particular as a substratum, also called bare particular, together
with various properties. The substratum confers individuality to the particular while the
properties express its qualitative features or what it is like. This approach is rejected
by bundle theorists. Inspired by David Hume's philosophy, they state that particulars are
only bundles of properties without an underlying substratum. Some bundle theorists
include in the bundle an individual essence,
called haecceity following scholastic terminology, to ensure that each bundle is unique.
Another proposal for concrete particulars is that they are individuated by their space-time
location. [40]

Concrete particulars encountered in everyday life, like rocks, tables, and organisms, are
complex entities composed of various parts. For example, a table consists of a tabletop
and legs, each of which is itself made up of countless particles. The relation between parts
and wholes is studied by mereology.[41][g] The problem of the many is a philosophical
question about the conditions under which several individual things compose a larger
whole. For example, a cloud comprises many droplets without a clear boundary, raising the
question of which droplets form part of the cloud. According to mereological universalists,
every collection of entities forms a whole. This means that what seems to be a single cloud
is an overlay of countless clouds, one for each cloud-like collection of water droplets.
Mereological moderatists hold that certain conditions must be met for a group of entities to
compose a whole, for example, that the entities touch one another. Mereological
nihilists reject the idea of wholes altogether, claiming that there are no clouds or tables but
only particles that are arranged cloud-wise or table-wise. [43] A related mereological problem
is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether
everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists
contend. [44]

Universals

Main article: Universal (metaphysics)

Universals are general entities, encompassing both properties and relations, that express
what particulars are like and how they resemble one another. They are repeatable, meaning
that they are not limited to a unique existent but can be instantiated by different particulars
at the same time. For example, the particulars Nelson Mandela and Mahatma
Gandhi instantiate the universal humanity, similar to how a strawberry and a ruby
instantiate the universal red.[45]

A topic discussed since ancient philosophy, the problem of universals consists in the
challenge of characterizing the ontological status of universals. [46] Realists argue that
universals are real, mind-independent entities that exist in addition to particulars.
According to Platonic realists, universals exist independently of particulars, which implies
that the universal red would continue to exist even if there were no red things. A
more moderate form of realism, inspired by Aristotle, states that universals depend on
particulars, meaning that they are only real if they are instantiated. Nominalists reject the
idea that universals exist in either form. For them, the world is composed exclusively of
particulars. Conceptualists offer an intermediate position, stating that universals exist, but
only as concepts in the mind used to order experience by classifying entities. [47][h]

Natural and social kinds are often understood as special types of universals. Entities
belonging to the same natural kind share certain fundamental features characteristic of the
structure of the natural world. In this regard, natural kinds are not an artificially constructed
classification but are discovered, [i] usually by the natural sciences, and include kinds
like electrons, H2O, and tigers. Scientific realists and anti-realists disagree about whether
natural kinds exist. [50] Social kinds, like money and baseball,[51] are studied by social
metaphysics and characterized as useful social constructions that, while not purely
fictional, do not reflect the fundamental structure of mind-independent reality. [52]

Possibility and necessity

The concepts of possibility and necessity convey what can or must be the case, expressed
in modal statements like "it is possible to find a cure for cancer" and "it is necessary that
two plus two equals four". Modal metaphysics studies metaphysical problems surrounding
possibility and necessity, for instance, why some modal statements are true while others
are false. [53][j] Some metaphysicians hold that modality is a fundamental aspect of reality,
meaning that besides facts about what is the case, there are additional facts about what
could or must be the case. [55] A different view argues that modal truths are not about an
independent aspect of reality but can be reduced to non-modal characteristics, for
example, to facts about what properties or linguistic descriptions are compatible with each
other or to fictional statements.[56]

Borrowing a term from German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's theodicy, many
metaphysicians use the concept of possible worlds to analyze the meaning and ontological
ramifications of modal statements. A possible world is a complete and consistent way the
totality of things could have been. [57] For example, the dinosaurs were wiped out in the
actual world but there are possible worlds in which they are still alive. [58] According to
possible world semantics, a statement is possibly true if it is true in at least one possible
world, whereas it is necessarily true if it is true in all possible worlds. [59] Modal realists argue
that possible worlds exist as concrete entities in the same sense as the actual world, with
the main difference being that the actual world is the world we live in while other possible
worlds are inhabited by counterparts. This view is controversial and various alternatives
have been suggested, for example, that possible worlds only exist as abstract objects or
are similar to stories told in works of fiction.[60]

Space, time, and change

Main article: Philosophy of space and time

Space and time are dimensions that entities occupy. Spacetime realists state that space
and time are fundamental aspects of reality and exist independently of the human mind.
Spacetime idealists, by contrast, hold that space and time are constructs of the human
mind, created to organize and make sense of reality. [61] Spacetime absolutism or
substantivalism understands spacetime as a distinct object, with some metaphysicians
conceptualizing it as a container that holds all other entities within it. Spacetime
relationism sees spacetime not as an object but as a network of relations between objects,
such as the spatial relation of being next to and the temporal relation of coming before.[62]

In the metaphysics of time, an important contrast is between the A-series and the B-series.
According to the A-series theory, the flow of time is real, meaning that events are
categorized into the past, present, and future. The present continually moves forward in
time and events that are in the present now will eventually change their status and lie in the
past. From the perspective of the B-series theory, time is static, and events are ordered by
the temporal relations earlier-than and later-than without any essential difference between
past, present, and future. [63] Eternalism holds that past, present, and future are equally
real, whereas presentism asserts that only entities in the present exist. [64]

Material objects persist through time and change in the process, like a tree that grows or
loses leaves. [65] The main ways of conceptualizing persistence through time
are endurantism and perdurantism. According to endurantism, material objects are three-
dimensional entities that are wholly present at each moment. As they change, they gain or
lose properties but otherwise remain the same. Perdurantists see material objects as four-
dimensional entities that extend through time and are made up of different temporal parts.
At each moment, only one part of the object is present, not the object as a whole. Change
means that an earlier part is qualitatively different from a later part. For example, when a
banana ripens, there is an unripe part followed by a ripe part. [66]

Causality

Main article: Causality

Causality is the relation between cause and effect whereby one entity produces or alters
another entity. [67] For instance, if a person bumps a glass and spills its contents then the
bump is the cause and the spill is the effect. [68] Besides the single-case causation between
particulars in this example, there is also general-case causation expressed in statements
such as "smoking causes cancer". [69] The term agent causation is used when people and
their actions cause something. [70] Causation is usually interpreted deterministically,
meaning that a cause always brings about its effect. However, some philosophers such
as G. E. M. Anscombe have provided counterexamples to this idea. [71] Such
counterexamples have inspired the development of probabilistic theories, which claim that
the cause merely increases the probability that the effect occurs. This view can explain that
smoking causes cancer even though this does not happen in every single case. [72]

The regularity theory of causation, inspired by David Hume's philosophy, states that
causation is nothing but a constant conjunction in which the mind apprehends that one
phenomenon, like putting one's hand in a fire, is always followed by another phenomenon,
like a feeling of pain. [73] According to nomic regularity theories, regularities manifest as laws
of nature studied by science. [74] Counterfactual theories focus not on regularities but on
how effects depend on their causes. They state that effects owe their existence to the
cause and would not occur without them. [75] According to primitivism, causation is a basic
concept that cannot be analyzed in terms of non-causal concepts, such as regularities or
dependence relations. One form of primitivism identifies causal powers inherent in entities
as the underlying mechanism.[76] Eliminativists reject the above theories by holding that
there is no causation. [77]

Mind and free will

Main articles: Mind and Free will

 Different approaches toward resolving the
mind–body problem [78]

Mind encompasses phenomena like thinking, perceiving, feeling, and desiring as well as
the underlying faculties responsible for these phenomena. [79] The mind–body problem is
the challenge of clarifying the relation between physical and mental phenomena.
According to Cartesian dualism, minds and bodies are distinct substances. They causally
interact with each other in various ways but can, at least in principle, exist on their
own. [80] This view is rejected by monists, who argue that reality is made up of only one kind.
According to metaphysical idealism, everything is mental or dependent on the mind,
including physical objects, which may be understood as ideas or perceptions of conscious
minds.[k] Materialists, by contrast, state that all reality is at its core material. Some deny
that mind exists but the more common approach is to explain mind in terms of certain
aspects of matter, such as brain states, behavioral dispositions, or functional
roles.[82] Neutral monists argue that reality is fundamentally neither material nor mental
and suggest that matter and mind are both derivative phenomena. [83] A key aspect of the
mind–body problem is the hard problem of consciousness or how to explain that physical
systems like brains can produce phenomenal consciousness. [84]

The status of free will as the ability of a person to choose their actions is a central aspect of
the mind–body problem. [85] Metaphysicians are interested in the relation between free will
and causal determinism—the view that everything in the universe, including human
behavior, is determined by preceding events and laws of nature. It is controversial whether
causal determinism is true, and, if so, whether this would imply that there is no free will.
According to incompatibilism, free will cannot exist in a deterministic world since there is
no true choice or control if everything is determined. [l] Hard determinists infer from this that
there is no free will, whereas libertarians conclude that determinism must be
false. Compatibilists offer a third perspective, arguing that determinism and free will do not
exclude each other, for instance, because a person can still act in tune with their
motivation and choices even if they are determined by other forces. Free will plays a key
role in ethics regarding the moral responsibility people have for what they do. [87]
Others

Identity is a relation that every entity has to itself as a form of sameness. It refers to
numerical identity when the same entity is involved, as in the statement "the morning
star is the evening star" (both are the planet Venus). In a slightly different sense, it
encompasses qualitative identity, also called exact similarity and indiscernibility, which
occurs when two distinct entities are exactly alike, such as perfect identical twins. [88] The
principle of the indiscernibility of identicals is widely accepted and holds that numerically
identical entities exactly resemble one another. The converse principle, known as
the identity of indiscernibles or Leibniz's Law, is more controversial and states that two
entities are numerically identical if they exactly resemble one another. [89] Another
distinction is between synchronic and diachronic identity. Synchronic identity relates an
entity to itself at the same time, whereas diachronic identity is about the same entity at
different times, as in statements like "the table I bought last year is the same as the table in
my dining room now". [90] Personal identity is a related topic in metaphysics that uses the
term identity in a slightly different sense and concerns questions like what personhood is
or what makes someone a person. [91]

Various contemporary metaphysicians rely on the concepts of truth, truth-bearer,

and truthmaker to conduct their inquiry. [92] Truth is a property of being in accord with reality.
Truth-bearers are entities that can be true or false, such as linguistic statements and
mental representations. A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes
the statement true. [93] For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a
truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red". [94] Based on this observation, it is possible
to pursue metaphysical research by asking what the truthmakers of statements are, with
different areas of metaphysics being dedicated to different types of statements. According
to this view, modal metaphysics asks what makes statements about what is possible and
necessary true while the metaphysics of time is interested in the truthmakers of temporal
statements about the past, present, and future. [95] A closely related topic concerns the
nature of truth. Theories of truth aim to determine this nature and
include correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, semantic, and deflationary theories.[96]

Methodology

Metaphysicians employ a variety of methods to develop metaphysical theories and

formulate arguments for and against them. [97] Traditionally, a priori methods have been the
dominant approach. They rely on rational intuition and abstract reasoning from general
principles rather than sensory experience. A posteriori approaches, by contrast, ground
metaphysical theories in empirical observations and scientific theories. [98] Some
metaphysicians incorporate perspectives from fields such
as physics, psychology, linguistics, and history into their inquiry. [99] The two approaches are
not mutually exclusive: it is possible to combine elements from both. [100] The method a
metaphysician chooses often depends on their understanding of the nature of
metaphysics, for example, whether they see it as an inquiry into the mind-independent
structure of reality, as metaphysical realists claim, or the principles underlying thought and
experience, as some metaphysical anti-realists contend. [101]

A priori approaches often rely on intuitions—non-inferential impressions about the

correctness of specific claims or general principles. [102][m] For example, arguments for the A-
theory of time, which states that time flows from the past through the present and into the
future, often rely on pre-theoretical intuitions associated with the sense of the passage of
time.[105] Some approaches use intuitions to establish a small set of self-
evident fundamental principles, known as axioms, and employ deductive reasoning to
build complex metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these
axioms. [106] Intuition-based approaches can be combined with thought experiments, which
help evoke and clarify intuitions by linking them to imagined situations. They
use counterfactual thinking to assess the possible consequences of these
situations. [107] For example, to explore the relation between matter and consciousness,
some theorists compare humans to philosophical zombies—hypothetical creatures
identical to humans but without conscious experience.[108] A related method relies on
commonly accepted beliefs instead of intuitions to formulate arguments and theories.
The common-sense approach is often used to criticize metaphysical theories that deviate
significantly from how the average person thinks about an issue. For example, common-
sense philosophers have argued that mereological nihilism is false since it implies that
commonly accepted things, like tables, do not exist. [109]

Conceptual analysis, a method particularly prominent in analytic philosophy, aims to

decompose metaphysical concepts into component parts to clarify their meaning and
identify essential relations. [110] In phenomenology, the method of eidetic variation is used to
investigate essential structures underlying phenomena. This method involves imagining an
object and varying its features to determine which ones are essential and cannot be
changed. [111] The transcendental method is a further approach and examines the
metaphysical structure of reality by observing what entities there are and studying
the conditions of possibility without which these entities could not exist. [112]

Some approaches give less importance to a priori reasoning and view metaphysics as a
practice continuous with the empirical sciences that generalizes their insights while
making their underlying assumptions explicit. This approach is known as naturalized
metaphysics and is closely associated with the work of Willard Van Orman Quine.[113] He
relies on the idea that true sentences from the sciences and other fields have ontological
commitments, that is, they imply that certain entities exist. [114] For example, if the sentence
"some electrons are bonded to protons" is true then it can be used to justify that electrons
and protons exist. [115] Quine used this insight to argue that one can learn about
metaphysics by closely analyzing [n] scientific claims to understand what kind of
metaphysical picture of the world they presuppose. [117]

In addition to methods of conducting metaphysical inquiry, there are various

methodological principles used to decide between competing theories by comparing their
theoretical virtues. Ockham's Razor is a well-known principle that gives preference to
simple theories, in particular, those that assume that few entities exist. Other principles
consider explanatory power, theoretical usefulness, and proximity to established
beliefs. [118]

Criticism

David Hume criticizes metaphysicians for trying to

gain knowledge outside the field of sensory experience.

Despite its status as one of the main branches of philosophy, metaphysics has received
numerous criticisms questioning its legitimacy as a field of inquiry. [119] One criticism argues
that metaphysical inquiry is impossible because humans lack the cognitive capacities
needed to access the ultimate nature of reality. [120] This line of thought leads
to skepticism about the possibility of metaphysical knowledge. Empiricists often follow this
idea, like Hume, who asserts that there is no good source of metaphysical knowledge since
metaphysics lies outside the field of empirical knowledge and relies on dubious intuitions
about the realm beyond sensory experience. Arguing that the mind actively structures
experience, Kant criticizes traditional metaphysics for its attempt to gain insight into the
mind-independent nature of reality. He asserts that knowledge is limited to the realm of
possible experience, meaning that humans are not able to decide questions like whether
the world has a beginning in time or is infinite. A related argument favoring the unreliability
of metaphysical theorizing points to the deep and lasting disagreements about
metaphysical issues, suggesting a lack of overall progress. [121]

Another criticism holds that the problem lies not with human cognitive abilities but with
metaphysical statements themselves, which some claim are neither true nor false
but meaningless. According to logical positivists, for instance, the meaning of a statement
is given by the procedure used to verify it, usually through the observations that would
confirm it. Based on this controversial assumption, they argue that metaphysical
statements are meaningless since they make no testable predictions about experience. [122]

A slightly weaker position allows metaphysical statements to have meaning while holding
that metaphysical disagreements are merely verbal disputes about different ways to
describe the world. According to this view, the disagreement in the metaphysics of
composition about whether there are tables or only particles arranged table-wise is a trivial
debate about linguistic preferences without any substantive consequences for the nature
of reality. [123] The position that metaphysical disputes have no meaning or no significant
point is called metaphysical or ontological deflationism.[124] This view is opposed by so-
called serious metaphysicians, who contend that metaphysical disputes are about
substantial features of the underlying structure of reality. [125] A closely related debate
between ontological realists and anti-realists concerns the question of whether there are
any objective facts that determine which metaphysical theories are true. [126] A different
criticism, formulated by pragmatists, sees the fault of metaphysics not in its cognitive
ambitions or the meaninglessness of its statements, but in its practical irrelevance and
lack of usefulness. [127]

Martin Heidegger criticized traditional metaphysics, saying that it fails to distinguish

between individual entities and being as their ontological ground. His attempt to reveal the
underlying assumptions and limitations in the history of metaphysics to "overcome
metaphysics" influenced Jacques Derrida's method of deconstruction.[128] Derrida
employed this approach to criticize metaphysical texts for relying on opposing terms, like
presence and absence, which he thought were inherently unstable and contradictory. [129]

There is no consensus about the validity of these criticisms and whether they affect
metaphysics as a whole or only certain issues or approaches in it. For example, it could be
the case that certain metaphysical disputes are merely verbal while others are
substantive. [130]
Relation to other disciplines

Metaphysics is related to many fields of inquiry by investigating their basic concepts and
relation to the fundamental structure of reality. For example, the natural sciences rely on
concepts such as law of nature, causation, necessity, and spacetime to formulate their
theories and predict or explain the outcomes of experiments. [131] While scientists primarily
focus on applying these concepts to specific situations, metaphysics examines their
general nature and how they depend on each other. For instance, physicists formulate laws
of nature, like laws of gravitation and thermodynamics, to describe how physical systems
behave under various conditions. Metaphysicians, by contrast, examine what all laws of
nature have in common, asking whether they merely describe contingent regularities or
express necessary relations. [132] New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing
metaphysical theories and inspired new ones. Einstein's theory of relativity, for instance,
prompted various metaphysicians to conceive space and time as a unified dimension
rather than as independent dimensions. [133] Empirically focused metaphysicians often rely
on scientific theories to ground their theories about the nature of reality in empirical
observations. [134]

Similar issues arise in the social sciences where metaphysicians investigate their basic
concepts and analyze their metaphysical implications. This includes questions like
whether social facts emerge from non-social facts, whether social groups and institutions
have mind-independent existence, and how they persist through time. [135] Metaphysical
assumptions and topics in psychology and psychiatry include the questions about the
relation between body and mind, whether the nature of the human mind is historically
fixed, and what the metaphysical status of diseases is. [136]

Metaphysics is similar to both physical cosmology and theology in its exploration of the
first causes and the universe as a whole. Key differences are that metaphysics relies on
rational inquiry while physical cosmology gives more weight to empirical observations and
theology incorporates divine revelation and other faith-based doctrines. [137] Historically,
cosmology and theology were considered subfields of metaphysics. [138]

Suggested Upper Merged Ontology

Entity Physical Object

Process
 Abstract Quantity

Proposition

Attribute

Relation

Set or
Class

Fundamental categories in the Suggested

Upper Merged Ontology[139]

Computer scientists rely on metaphysics in the form of ontology to represent and classify
objects. They develop conceptual frameworks, called ontologies, for limited
domains, [140] such as a database with categories like person, company, address,
and name to represent information about clients and employees. [141] Ontologies provide
standards for encoding and storing information in a structured way, allowing
computational processes to use the information for various purposes. [140] Upper
ontologies, such as Suggested Upper Merged Ontology and Basic Formal Ontology, define
concepts at a more abstract level, making it possible to integrate information belonging to
different domains. [142]

Logic as the study of correct reasoning[143] is often used by metaphysicians to engage in

their inquiry and express insights through precise logical formulas.[144][o] Another relation
between the two fields concerns the metaphysical assumptions associated with logical
systems. Many logical systems like first-order logic rely on existential quantifiers to express

existential statements. For instance, in the logical formula ∃𝑥Horse(𝑥) the existential

quantifier ∃ is applied to the predicate Horse to express that there are horses.
Following Quine, various metaphysicians assume that existential quantifiers
carry ontological commitments, meaning that existential statements imply that the entities
over which one quantifies are part of reality. [146]

History

Main article: History of metaphysics

 The taijitu symbol shows yin and yang, which are two
correlated forces discussed in Chinese metaphysics to explore the nature and patterns of
existence. [147]

Metaphysics originated in the ancient period from speculations about the nature and origin
of the cosmos. [148] In ancient India, starting in the 7th century BCE, the Upanishads were
written as religious and philosophical texts that examine how ultimate reality constitutes
the ground of all being. They further explore the nature of the self and how it can
reach liberation by understanding ultimate reality. [149] This period also saw the emergence
of Buddhism in the 6th century BCE, [p] which denies the existence of an independent self
and understands the world as a cyclic process.[151] At about the same time[q] in ancient
China, the school of Taoism was formed and explored the natural order of the universe,
known as Tao, and how it is characterized by the interplay of yin and yang as two correlated
forces.[153]

In ancient Greece, metaphysics emerged in the 6th century BCE with the pre-
Socratic philosophers, who gave rational explanations of the cosmos as a whole by
examining the first principles from which everything arises. [154] Building on their
work, Plato (427–347 BCE) formulated his theory of forms, which states that eternal forms
or ideas possess the highest kind of reality while the material world is only an imperfect
reflection of them. [155] Aristotle (384–322 BCE) accepted Plato's idea that there are
universal forms but held that they cannot exist on their own but depend on matter. He also
proposed a system of categories and developed a comprehensive framework of the natural
world through his theory of the four causes.[156] Starting in the 4th century BCE, Hellenistic
philosophy explored the rational order underlying the cosmos and the laws governing
it.[157] Neoplatonism emerged towards the end of the ancient period in the 3rd century CE
and introduced the idea of "the One" as the transcendent and ineffable source of all
creation. [158][r]

Meanwhile, in Indian Buddhism, the Madhyamaka school developed the idea that all
phenomena are inherently empty without a permanent essence. The consciousness-only
doctrine of the Yogācāra school stated that experienced objects are mere transformations
of consciousness and do not reflect external reality. [160] The Hindu
school of Samkhya philosophy[s] introduced a metaphysical dualism with pure
consciousness and matter as its fundamental categories. [161] In China, the school
of Xuanxue explored metaphysical problems such as the contrast between being and non-
being. [162]

Boethius's theory of universals influenced many

subsequent metaphysicians.

Medieval Western philosophy was profoundly shaped by ancient Greek thought as

philosophers integrated these ideas with Christian philosophical teachings. Boethius (477–
524 CE) sought to reconcile Plato's and Aristotle's theories of universals, proposing that
universals can exist both in matter and mind. His theory inspired the development of
nominalism and conceptualism, as in the thought of Peter Abelard (1079–1142
CE). [163] Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274 CE) understood metaphysics as the discipline
investigating different meanings of being, such as the contrast between substance
and accident, and principles applying to all beings, such as the principle of
identity.[164] William of Ockham (1285–1347 CE) developed a methodological principle,
known as Ockham's razor, to choose between competing metaphysical
theories. [165] Arabic–Persian philosophy flourished from the early 9th century CE to the late
12th century CE, integrating ancient Greek philosophies to interpret and clarify the
teachings of the Quran.[166] Avicenna (980–1037 CE) developed a comprehensive
philosophical system that examined the contrast between existence and essence and
distinguished between contingent and necessary existence. [167] Medieval India saw the
emergence of the monist school of Advaita Vedanta in the 8th century CE, which holds that
everything is one and that the idea of many entities existing independently is
an illusion.[168] In China, Neo-Confucianism arose in the 9th century CE and explored
the concept of li as the rational principle that is the ground of being and reflects the order
of the universe. [169]

In the early modern period and following renewed interest in Platonism during
the Renaissance, René Descartes (1596–1650) developed a substance dualism according
to which body and mind exist as independent entities that causally interact. [170] This idea
was rejected by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), who formulated a monist philosophy
suggesting that there is only one substance with both physical and mental attributes that
develop side-by-side without interacting. [171] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716)
introduced the concept of possible worlds and articulated a metaphysical system known
as monadology, which views the universe as a collection of simple
substances synchronized without causal interaction. [172] Christian Wolff (1679–1754),
conceptualized the scope of metaphysics by distinguishing between general and special
metaphysics. [173] According to the idealism of George Berkeley (1685–1753), everything is
mental, including material objects, which are ideas perceived by the mind.[174] David
Hume (1711–1776) made various contributions to metaphysics, including the regularity
theory of causation and the idea that there are no necessary connections between distinct
entities. Inspired by the empiricism of Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and John Locke (1632–
1704), Hume criticized metaphysical theories that seek ultimate principles inaccessible to
sensory experience. [175] This critical outlook was embraced by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804),
who tried to reconceptualize metaphysics as an inquiry into the basic principles and
categories of thought and understanding rather than seeing it as an attempt to
comprehend mind-independent reality. [176]

Many developments in the later modern period were shaped by Kant's philosophy. German
idealists adopted his idealistic outlook in their attempt to find a unifying principle as the
foundation of all reality. [177] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (1770–1831) idealistic
contention is that reality is conceptual all the way down, and being itself is rational. [178] He
inspired the British idealism of Francis Herbert Bradley (1846–1924), who interpreted
Hegel's concept of absolute spirit as the all-inclusive totality of being. [179] Arthur
Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was a strong critic of German idealism and articulated a
different metaphysical vision, positing a blind and irrational will as the underlying principle
of reality.[180] Pragmatists like C. S. Peirce (1839–1914) and John Dewey (1859–1952)
conceived metaphysics as an observational science of the most general features of reality
and experience. [181]
 Alfred North Whitehead articulated the foundations
of process philosophy in his work Process and Reality.

At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand
Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism", arguing for
the existence of a mind-independent world aligned with common sense and empirical
science. [182] Logical atomists, like Russell and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951),
conceived the world as a multitude of atomic facts, which later inspired metaphysicians
such as D. M. Armstrong (1926–2014). [183] Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947)
developed process metaphysics as an attempt to provide a holistic description of both the
objective and the subjective realms. [184]

Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) and other logical positivists formulated a wide-ranging

criticism of metaphysical statements, arguing that they are meaningless because there is
no way to verify them.[185] Other criticisms of traditional metaphysics identified
misunderstandings of ordinary language as the source of many traditional metaphysical
problems or challenged complex metaphysical deductions by appealing to common
sense. [186]

The decline of logical positivism led to a revival of metaphysical theorizing. [187] Willard Van
Orman Quine (1908–2000) tried to naturalize metaphysics by connecting it to the empirical
sciences. His student David Lewis (1941–2001) employed the concept of possible worlds
to formulate his modal realism.[188] Saul Kripke (1940–2022) helped revive discussions of
identity and essentialism, distinguishing necessity as a metaphysical notion from
the epistemic notion of a priori.[189]
In continental philosophy, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) engaged in ontology through a
phenomenological description of experience, while his student Martin Heidegger (1889–
1976) developed fundamental ontology to clarify the meaning of being. [190] Heidegger's
philosophy inspired Jacques Derrida's (1930–2004) criticism of metaphysics. [191] Gilles
Deleuze's (1925–1995) approach to metaphysics challenged traditionally influential
concepts like substance, essence, and identity by reconceptualizing the field through
alternative notions such as multiplicity, event, and difference. [192]

See also

• Computational metaphysics

• Doctor of Metaphysics

• Enrico Berti's classification of metaphysics

• Feminist metaphysics

• Fundamental question of metaphysics

• List of metaphysicians

• Metaphysical grounding

References

Notes

a. Philosophers engaged in metaphysics are

called metaphysicians or metaphysicists.[2] Outside the academic discourse, the
term metaphysics is sometimes used in a different sense for the study
of occult and paranormal phenomena, like metaphysical healing, auras, and
the power of pyramids.[3]

b. For example, the metaphysical problem of causation is relevant both

to epistemology, as a factor involved in perceptual knowledge, and ethics, in regard
to moral responsibility for the consequences caused by one's actions.[8]

c. The term ontology is sometimes also used as a synonym of metaphysics as a

whole. [16]

d. Some philosophers use the term metaontology as a synonym while others

characterize metaontology as a subfield of meta-metaphysics. [24]

e. According to Meinong, existence is not a synonym of being: all entities have being
but not all entities have existence. [30]
f. Although commonly labelled Plato's theory of forms, there is some scholarly
disagreement about the extent to which this position belongs to Socrates rather
than Plato. [33]

g. Mereological problems were discussed as early as ancient Greek philosophy. [42]

h. The positions of nominalism and conceptualism were formulated in medieval

philosophy. [48]

i. The classified entities do not have to occur naturally and can encompass man-
made products, such as synthetic chemical substances. [49]

j. A further topic concerns different types of modality, such as the contrast between
physical, metaphysical, and logical necessity based on whether the necessity has
its source in the laws of nature, the essences of things, or the laws of logic. [54]

k. There are other forms of idealism that assert slightly different positions, such
as transcendental idealism and absolute idealism.[81]

l. For example, the consequence argument by Peter van Inwagen says that people
have no power over the future if everything is determined by the past together with
the laws of nature. [86]

m. The term intuition has a variety of other meanings in philosophy. It can refer to a
simple opinion, a disposition to belief, what seems to be the case, or a relation
between the mind and abstract objects. [103] The concept plays a central role in the
philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who understands intuitions as conscious, objective
representations closely associated with the sense of space and time. [104]

n. Quine's method of analysis relies on logic translation to first-order logic in order to

express claims as precisely as possible while relying existential quantifiers to
identify their ontological commitments. [116]

o. For example, higher-order metaphysics makes extensive use of higher-order logic to

analyze metaphysical problems. [145]

p. The precise date is disputed. [150]

q. According to traditional accounts, Laozi as the founder of Taoism lived in the 6th
century BCE but other accounts state that he may have lived in the 4th or 3rd
centuries BCE. [152]

r. Influential Neoplatonists include Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hypatia,

and Proclus.[159]
 s. The ideas underlying Samkhya philosophy arose as early as the 7th and 6th
centuries BCE but its classical and systematic formulation is dated 350 CE. [161]

Citations

1.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 1–3

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 1–2

o McDaniel 2020, § 0.3 An Overview of Metaphysics and Other Areas of

Philosophy

o Mumford 2012, § What Is an Introduction?

2.

o Mumford 2012, § 10 What Is Metaphysics?

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, p. 2

3.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, p. 1

o Turner 1911, I. The Name

4.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 1–4

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 1–2

o McDaniel 2020, § 0.3 An Overview of Metaphysics and Other Areas of

Philosophy

o Mumford 2012, § 10 What Is Metaphysics?

o Ney 2014, pp. 9–10

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, Lead Section, § 1. The Word
'Metaphysics' and the Concept of Metaphysics

5. Loux & Crisp 2017, p. 2

6.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 1–4

 o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, Lead Section, § 1. The Word
'Metaphysics' and the Concept of Metaphysics

7.

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 8–10

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 2–3

8. Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 8–10

9.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 1–2, 6–7

o Bengtson 2015, p. 23

o Wood 2009, p. 354

10.

o Heyndels, Bengtson & Mesel 2024, p. 4

o MacDonald 2008, p. 18

11.

o Mumford 2012, § 10 What Is Metaphysics?

o Ney 2014, p. xiii

o Tahko 2015, pp. 206–207

12. Tahko 2015, pp. 203–205

13.

o Hoad 1993, pp. 291, 351

o Cohen & Reeve 2021, Lead Section

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 1–2

o Mumford 2012, § 10. What Is Metaphysics?

o Politis 2004, p. 1

o OED staff 2025

14.
 o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

o Mumford 2012, § 10. What Is Metaphysics?

o Pols 1993, p. 203

o Lowe 2013, p. 127

15.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 3–5, 10

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 1. The Word 'Metaphysics' and the
Concept of Metaphysics

o Craig 1998

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 1–2

16. Hawley 2016, p. 166

17.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 10–14

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 1. The Word 'Metaphysics' and the
Concept of Metaphysics

o Campbell 2006, The Categories Of Being

18.

o Hofweber 2023, § 3. Ontology

o Campbell 2006, The Categories Of Being

o Thomasson 2022, Lead Section

19.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 3–5, 10

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 1. The Word 'Metaphysics' and the
Concept of Metaphysics

20.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 10–11

o Craig 1998, § 2. Specific Metaphysics

21.

o Hawley 2016, pp. 165–168

o Brumbaugh 1966, pp. 647–648

22. Hawley 2016, pp. 168–169, 171–172

23. Hawley 2016, p. 174

24. Tahko 2018, Lead Section

25.

o McDaniel 2020, § 7 Meta-metaphysics

o Tahko 2018, Lead Section

26.

o Lowe 2005b, p. 277

o White 2019, pp. 135, 200

o Jubien 2004, pp. 47–48

27.

o Lowe 2005b, p. 277

o American Heritage Dictionary 2022

28.

o Casati & Fujikawa, Lead Section, §1. Existence as a Second-Order Property

and Its Relation to Quantification

o Blackburn 2008, existence

29.

o Casati & Fujikawa, Lead Section, §2. Existence as a First-Order Property and
Its Relation to Quantification

o Blackburn 2008, existence

30.

o Van Inwagen 2023

o Nelson 2022, Lead Section, §2. Meinongianism

 o Jubien 2004, p. 49

31.

o Casati & Fujikawa, Lead Section, §3. How Many Ways of Being Existent?

o McDaniel 2017, p. 77

32.

o Daly 2009, pp. 227–228

o Van Inwagen 2023

33.

o Gerson 2002, p. 87

o Dancy 2004, p. 11

34.

o Thomasson 2022, Lead Section

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 11–12

o Wardy 1998, Lead Section

35.

o Thomasson 2022, § 1.1 Aristotelian Realism

o Studtmann 2024, § 2. The Ten-Fold Division

o Wardy 1998, § 1. Categories in Aristotle

36.

o Thomasson 2022, § 1.2 Kantian Conceptualism

o Wardy 1998, § 1. Categories in Kant

37.

o Thomasson 2022, § 1.3 Husserlian Descriptivism, § 1.4 Contemporary

Category Systems

o Grim & Rescher 2023, p. 39

38.
 o Falguera, Martínez-Vidal & Rosen 2022, Lead Section, § 1. Introduction, § 3.5
The Ways of Negation

o Erasmus 2018, p. 93

39.

o Lowe 2005, p. 683

o MacLeod & Rubenstein, Lead Section, § 1a. The Nature of Universals

o Bigelow 1998, Lead Section

o Campbell 2006, § Particularity and Individuality

o Maurin 2019, Lead Section

40.

o Maurin 2019, Lead Section

o Campbell 2006, § Particularity and Individuality

o Bigelow 1998, Lead Section, § 3. Bundles of Properties

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 82–83

41.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 250–251

o Varzi 2019, Lead Section, § 1. 'Part' and Parthood

o Cornell, Lead Section, § 2. The Special Composition Question

o Tallant 2017, pp. 19–21

42. Varzi 2019, Lead Section

43.

o Weatherson 2023, Lead section, § 3. Overpopulation

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 82–83

o Cornell, Lead Section, § 2. The Special Composition Question

o Brenner 2015, p. 1295

o Tallant 2017, pp. 19–21, 23–24, 32–33

44.

o Berryman 2022, § 2.6 Atomism and Particle Theories in Ancient Greek

Sciences

o Varzi 2019, § 3.4 Atomism, Gunk, and Other Options

45.

o MacLeod & Rubenstein, Lead Section

o Bigelow 1998a, Lead Section

o Cowling 2019, Lead Section

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 17–19

46.

o MacLeod & Rubenstein, Lead Section, § 1c. The Problem of Universals

o Rodriguez-Pereyra 2000, pp. 255–256

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 17–19

47.

o MacLeod & Rubenstein, Lead Section, § 2. Versions of Realism, § 3. Versions

of Anti-Realism

o Bigelow 1998a, § 4. Nominalism and Realism

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 17–19, 45

48. Hancock 2006, pp. 188–190

49.

o Brzović, Lead Section

o Bird & Tobin 2024, Lead Section

50.

o Brzović, Lead Section, § 3. Metaphysics of Natural Kinds

o Bird & Tobin 2024, Lead Section, § 1.2 Natural Kind Realism

o Liston, Lead Section

51.

o Ásta 2017, pp. 290–291

o Bird & Tobin 2024, § 2.4 Natural Kinds and Social Science

52.

o Ney 2014, pp. 259–263

o Rea 2021, pp. 185–186

53.

o Parent, Lead Section

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 149–150

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 154–155

o Mumford 2012, § 8. What Is Possible?

54.

o Hanna 2009, p. 196

o Hale 2020, p. 142

55.

o Goswick 2018, pp. 97–98

o Wilsch 2017, pp. 428–429, 446

56.

o Goswick 2018, pp. 97–98

o Parent, § 3. Ersatzism, § 4. Fictionalism

o Wilsch 2017, pp. 428–429

57.

o Menzel 2023, Lead Section, § 1. Possible Worlds and Modal Logic

o Berto & Jago 2023, Lead Section

o Pavel 1986, p. 50

o Campbell 2006, § Possible Worlds

58. Nuttall 2013, p. 135

59.

o Menzel 2023, Lead Section, § 1. Possible Worlds and Modal Logic

o Kuhn 2010, p. 13

60.

o Parent, Lead Section, § 2. Lewis' Realism, § 3. Ersatzism, § 4. Fictionalism

o Menzel 2023, Lead Section, § 2. Three Philosophical Conceptions of Possible

Worlds

o Campbell 2006, § Modal Realism

61.

o Dainton 2010, pp. 245–246

o Janiak 2022, § 4.2 Absolute/Relational Vs. Real/Ideal

o Pelczar 2015, p. 115

62.

o Hoefer, Huggett & Read 2023, Lead Section

o Benovsky 2016, pp. 19–20

o Romero 2018, p. 135

63.

o Dyke 2002, p. 138

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 182–185

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 160–161

64.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 179–181

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 206, 214–215

o Romero 2018, p. 135

65.
 o Miller 2018, Lead Section

o Costa, Lead Section

o Simons 2013, p. 166

66.

o Miller 2018, Lead Section

o Costa, Lead Section, § 1. Theories of Persistence

o Simons 2013, p. 166

o Hawley 2023, 3. Change and Temporal Parts

67.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 20–22

o Tallant 2017, pp. 218–219

68. Carroll & Markosian 2010, p. 20

69.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 21–22

o Williamson 2012, p. 186

70.

o Ney 2014, pp. 219, 252–253

o Tallant 2017, pp. 233–234

71.

o Wiland & Driver 2022, § 3. Metaphysics

o Van Miltenburg 2022, pp. 1, 6

72.

o Ney 2014, pp. 228–231

o Williamson 2012, pp. 185–186

73.
 o Lorkowski, Lead Section, § 2. Necessary Connections and Hume’s Two
Definitions, § 4. Causal Reductionism

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 24–25

o Tallant 2017, pp. 220–221

74. Ney 2014, pp. 223–224

75.

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, p. 26

o Tallant 2017, pp. 221–222

o Ney 2014, pp. 224–225

76.

o Ney 2014, pp. 231–232

o Mumford 2009, pp. 94–95

o Mumford & Anjum 2013

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 63–64

77. Tallant 2017, pp. 231–232

78. Kind & Stoljar 2023, § Introduction

79. Morton 2005, p. 603

80.

o McLaughlin 1999, pp. 684–685

o Kim 2005, p. 608

81.

o Alston 2018, p. 97

o Guyer & Horstmann 2023, § 1. Introduction

82.

o McLaughlin 1999, pp. 685–691

o Kim 2005, p. 608

 o Ramsey 2022, Lead Section

o Pradhan 2020, p. 4

83.

o Stubenberg & Wishon 2023, Lead Section; § 1.3 Mind and Matter Revisited

o Griffin 1998

84. Weisberg, Lead Section, § 1. Stating the Problem

85.

o Timpe, Lead Section

o Olson 2001, Mind–Body Problem

o Armstrong 2018, p. 94

86.

o Vihvelin 2022, § 5. Choice and the Consequence Argument

o Kane 2011, p. 10

87.

o O’Connor & Franklin 2022, Lead Section, § 2. The Nature of Free Will

o Timpe, Lead Section, § 1. Free Will, Free Action and Moral Responsibility, § 3.
Free Will and Determinism

o Armstrong 2018, p. 94

88.

o Kirwan 2005, pp. 417–418

o Noonan & Curtis 2022, Lead Section

89.

o Sleigh 2005, p. 418

o Kirwan 2005, pp. 417–418

o Noonan & Curtis 2022, § 2. The Logic of Identity

90.
 o Gallois 2016, § 2.1 Diachronic and Synchronic Identity

o Noonan & Curtis 2022, Lead Section, § 5. Identity Over Time

91.

o Noonan & Curtis 2022, Lead Section

o Olson 2023, Lead Section, § 1. The Problems of Personal Identity

o Korfmacher

92.

o Tallant 2017, pp. 1–4

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 15–17

93.

o Lowe 2005a, p. 926

o Tallant 2017, pp. 1–4

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 15–17

o Asay 2020, p. 11

o MacBride 2022

94.

o Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006, pp. 191–192

o Beebee & Dodd 2005, pp. 2–3

o Tallant 2017, p. 1

95.

o Tallant 2017, pp. 1–4, 163–165

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 15–17, 154

o Meinertsen 2018, pp. 21–22

96.

o Dowden & Swartz, Lead section

o Engel 2014, pp. 12, 34–35, 47

97.

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. xi, 2

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 2–3

98.

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 2–3

o Mumford 2012, § 10. What Is Metaphysics?

o Tahko 2015, pp. 151–152

o Jaksland 2023, pp. 198–199

99. Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 2–3

100. Tahko 2015, pp. 151–152, 172–173

101.

o Mumford 2012, § 10. What Is Metaphysics?

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 2–3

o Effingham, Beebee & Goff 2010, p. 123

o Khlentzos 2021, Lead Section, § 3. The Anti-Realist Challenges to

Metaphysical Realism

102.

o Daly 2015, pp. 11–12, Introduction and Historical Overview

o Duignan 2009

o Tahko 2015, pp. 177–180

103.

o Pust 2019, § 1. The Nature of Intuitions

o Lacey 2005, p. 442

104.

o Janiak 2022, § 2.2 Kant's Understanding of Representation

o Lacey 2005, p. 442

105. Tahko 2015, pp. 188–190

106. Goldenbaum, Lead Section, § 1. The Geometrical Method

107.

o Tahko 2015, pp. 177–178

o Brown & Fehige 2019, Lead Section

o Goffi & Roux 2011, pp. 165, 168–169

o Eder, Lawler & Van Riel 2020, pp. 915–916

108. Kirk 2023, Lead Section, § 2. Zombies and Physicalism

109.

o Lawson 2020, pp. 185–186

o Jaksland 2023, pp. 198–199

110.

o Jackson 1998, pp. 28–30

o Eder, Lawler & Van Riel 2020, p. 915

o Shaffer 2015, pp. 555–556

o Audi 2006, § Philosophical Methods

111.

o Drummond 2022, p. 75

o Lohmar 2010, p. 83

112.

o Pihlström 2009, pp. 60–61

o Stern & Cheng 2023, Lead Section

113.

o Ney 2014, pp. 30–31

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 4. The Methodology of

Metaphysics
 o Jaksland 2023, pp. 198–199

114.

o Ney 2014, pp. 37–38, 40

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 4. The Methodology of

Metaphysics

115. Ney 2014, p. 41

116. Ney 2014, pp. 40–41

117.

o Ney 2014, pp. 40–43

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 4. The Methodology of

Metaphysics

118.

o McDaniel 2020, pp. 217–221

o Ney 2014, pp. 48–49

o Mumford 2012, § 10. What Is Metaphysics?

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 4. The Methodology of

Metaphysics

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 2–3

119.

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

o Manley 2009, pp. 1–2

120. Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

121.

o Rea 2021, pp. 210–212

o Carroll & Markosian 2010, pp. 16–17

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, pp. 4–5

o Willaschek 2018, p. 43
 o McCormick, Lead section, § 6. Kant's Dialectic

122.

o Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

o Manley 2009, p. 4

o Rea 2021, pp. 212–215

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 5

123.

o Manley 2009, pp. 1–4

o Rea 2021, pp. 213–215

o Tahko 2015, pp. 71–72

124.

o Manley 2009, pp. 4, 15, 32

o Sider 2009, pp. 386–387

125.

o Manley 2009, pp. 28, 36

o Kriegel 2016, pp. 272–273

126.

o Chalmers 2009, pp. 77–78

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 304–305

o Tahko 2015, pp. 65–66, 68

127.

o Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 5

o Macarthur 2020, p. 166

128.

o Wheeler 2020, § 1. Biographical Sketch, § 2.2.1 The Question, § 3.3

Technology
 o Gilje & Skirbekk 2017, pp. 463–464

o Holland, Lead Section

o Beaulieu, Kazarian & Sushytska 2014, pp. 3–4

o George 2015, p. 2

129.

o Reynolds, Lead Section, § 2. Deconstructive Strategy

o Gilje & Skirbekk 2017, pp. 463–464

o Holland, Lead Section

130. Rea 2021, pp. 215–216, 223–224

131.

o Göhner & Schrenk, Lead Section, § 1. What Is Metaphysics of Science?

o Mumford & Tugby 2013, pp. 1–2

o Hawley 2018, pp. 187–188

132.

o Göhner & Schrenk, § 3. Why Do We Need Metaphysics of Science?, § 4c.

Laws of Nature

o Roberts 2016, pp. 337–338

133. Healey 2016, pp. 356–357

134. Hawley 2018, pp. 187–188

135. Hawley 2018, pp. 188–189

136.

o Dafermos 2021, pp. 1–2, 6–7

o Hawley 2016, p. 174

137.

o Van Inwagen 2024, pp. 6–8

o Loux & Crisp 2017, p. 10

138.

o Dryer 2016, p. 490

o Loux & Crisp 2017, p. 10

139. Heckmann 2006, p. 42

140.

o Grütter & Bauer-Messmer 2007, p. 350

o Hawley 2016, pp. 168–170

141. Kozierkiewicz & Pietranik 2019, p. 24

142.

o Hameed, Preece & Sleeman 2013, pp. 231–233

o Stuart 2016, p. 14

143.

o MacFarlane 2017

o Corkum 2015, pp. 753–767

o Blair & Johnson 2000, pp. 93–95

o Magnus 2005, pp. 12–14, 1.6 Formal Languages

144. Ney 2014, pp. 1–2, 18–20

145.

o Hofweber 2022, pp. 29–30

o Fritz & Jones 2024, pp. 3–4

146.

o Shapiro & Kouri Kissel 2022, §2.1 Building Blocks

o Cook 2009, p. 111

o Kind 2018, p. 236

o Casati & Fujikawa, Lead Section, §1. Existence as a Second-Order Property

and Its Relation to Quantification
147.

o Perkins 2023, Lead Section

o Littlejohn, § 5. Fundamental Concepts in the Daodejing

148.

o Hancock 2006, p. 183

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

149.

o Perrett 2016, pp. 7–10

o Grayling 2019, § Indian Philosophy

o Andrea & Overfield 2015, pp. 70–71

150. Velez, § 1a. Dates

151.

o Perrett 2016, pp. 7–10

o Velez, Lead Section, § 3. The Buddha's Cosmology and Metaphysics

o Grayling 2019, § Indian Philosophy

152.

o Dynes 2016, p. 60

o Littlejohn, § 2. Classical Sources for Our Understanding of Daoism

153.

o Littlejohn, § 5. Fundamental Concepts in the Daodejing

o Dynes 2016, pp. 60–61

o Wang, Bao & Guan 2020, p. 3

154.

o Hancock 2006, p. 183

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

o Kirk 2004, pp. 308–310

155.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 184–185

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

o Graham, § 3b. Metaphysics

156.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 185–187

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

o Graham, § 4a. Terminology, § 4f. Metaphysics

157.

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 590

o Graham, § 5a. Epicureanism, § 5c. The Stoics

158.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 187–188

o Hamlyn 2005, pp. 590–591

o Graham, § 5. Post-Hellenistic Thought

159.

o Wildberg 2021, § 1. Historical Orientation: Antiquity

o Remes 2014, pp. 2, 25

160.

o Grayling 2019, § Indian Philosophy

o Depraz, Varela & Vermersch 2003, p. 212

o Shun'ei 2014, pp. 5–6

161.

o Ruzsa, Lead Section

o Grayling 2019, § Indian Philosophy

162.
 o Chai 2020, p. 19

o Robinet 2013, Chongxuan

163.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 188–189

o Grayling 2019, § Boethius, § Abelard

o Marenbon 2009, p. 6

o Sweeney 2016, pp. 10–11

164.

o Brown, § 5. Metaphysics

o Hancock 2006, p. 189

165.

o Hancock 2006, p. 190

o Grayling 2019, § Ockham

166.

o Grayling 2019, Arabic–Persian Philosophy

o Adamson & Taylor 2004, pp. 1–3

167.

o Grayling 2019, § Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

o Lizzini 2021, Lead Section, § 3. Essence and Existence, § 4. Modality and

Existence

168.

o Grayling 2019, § Indian Philosophy

o Perrett 2016, § The Medieval Period of Indian Philosophy

o Dalal 2021, Lead Section, § 2.3 Two-Tiered Reality

o Rangaswami 2012, p. 114

169.
 o Berthrong, Lead Section, § 4. Traits, Themes and Motifs

o Wu 2022, p. 56

o Smart 2008, p. 99

170.

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 591

o Dehsen 2013, p. 51

171.

o Hancock 2006, p. 190

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 591

172.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 190–191

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 591

o Look 2020, § 4. Metaphysics: A Primer on Substance

o Menzel 2023, 1. Possible Worlds and Modal Logic

173.

o Svare 2006, p. 15

o Hettche & Dyck 2019, § 5. Metaphysics

174.

o Hancock 2006, p. 192

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 591

175.

o Morris & Brown 2023, § 3. Philosophical Project, § 5. Causation, § 6. The Idea

of Necessary Connection

o Hamlyn 2005, pp. 591–592

o Waxman 2006, p. 488

176.
 o Hancock 2006, pp. 192–193

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 592

o Wood 2009, p. 354

o Loux & Crisp 2017, pp. 1–2, 6

177.

o Hancock 2006, p. 193

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 592

o Critchley 2001, p. 31

178.

o Houlgate 2005, p. 106

o Stern 2008, p. 172

179.

o Hancock 2006, p. 193

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 592

o Grayling 2019, § Idealism

180.

o Grayling 2019, § Schopenhauer

o Janaway 1999, pp. 248–249

o Barua 2018, pp. 2–3

181.

o Hancock 2006, p. 194

o Misak 2008, Scientific Realism, Anti-Realism, and Empiricism

182.

o Griffin 2013, pp. 383, 396, 399–402

o Peters 2021, pp. 31–32

183.
 o Proops 2022, Lead Section

o Klement 2019, Lead Section

o Mumford 2003, p. 100

184.

o Desmet & Irvine 2022, § 6. Metaphysics

o Palmer 1998, p. 175

185.

o Hamlyn 2005, p. 592

o Hart 1998, Lead Section

o Dharamsi 2017, p. 368

186.

o Hancock 2006, pp. 194–195

o Morris 2017, p. 15

o Baldwin 2010, § 2. The Refutation of Idealism, § 6. Common Sense and

Certainty

187. Broadbent 2016, p. 145

188.

o Hylton 2007, p. 348

o Oddie 2006, p. 170

o Parent, § 2. Lewis' Realism

189.

o Ahmed 2010, p. 3

o Gutting 2009, pp. 31–32

190.

o Smith 2018, Lead Section, § 5. Phenomenology and Ontology, Epistemology,

Logic, Ethics

o McLean 2003, p. 550

 o Taminiaux 1991, p. 154

191.

o Gilje & Skirbekk 2017, Derrida, Foucault, and Rorty – Deconstruction and
Critique

o Reynolds, Lead Section

192.

o Smith, Protevi & Voss 2023, Lead Section

o Roberts 2016a, p. 149

Sources

• Adamson, Peter; Taylor, Richard C. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Arabic

Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-49469-5.

• "Existence". American Heritage Dictionary. HarperCollins. 2022. Archived from the

original on 11 August 2023. Retrieved 10 August 2023.

• Ahmed, Arif (2010). Saul Kripke. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-4411-9399-5.

• Alston, William P. (2018). "What Metaphysical Realism is not". In Alston, William P.

(ed.). Realism and Antirealism. Cornell University Press. pp. 97–118. ISBN 978-1-
5017-2056-7.

• Andrea, Alfred J.; Overfield, James H. (2015). The Human Record: Sources of Global
History, Volume I: To 1500. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-305-53746-0.

• Armstrong, D. M. (2018). The Mind-body Problem: An Opinionated Introduction.

Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-96480-0.

• Asay, Jamin (2020). A Theory of Truthmaking: Metaphysics, Ontology, and Reality.

Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-60404-8.

• Ásta (2017). "Social Kinds". The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality.

Routledge. pp. 290–299. doi:10.4324/9781315768571-27. ISBN 978-1-315-76857-
1. Archived from the original on 26 March 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

• Audi, Robert (2006). "Philosophy". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. 7: Oakeshott – Presupposition (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan
Reference. pp. 325–337. ISBN 978-0-02-865787-5. Archived from the original on 14
February 2022. Retrieved 10 November 2023.
• Baldwin, Tom (2010). "George Edward Moore". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 30 April 2024.

• Barua, Arati (2018). "Introducing Schopenhauer's Philosophy of the World, Self, and
Morality in the Light of Vedantic and Non-Vedantic Wisdom". In Barua, Arati
(ed.). Schopenhauer on Self, World and Morality: Vedantic and Non-Vedantic
Perspectives. Springer Nature Singapore. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-981-10-5954-4.

• Beaulieu, Alain; Kazarian, Edward; Sushytska, Julia (2014). "Introduction: Gilles

Deleuze and Metaphysics". In Beaulieu, Alain; Kazarian, Edward; Sushytska, Julia
(eds.). Gilles Deleuze and Metaphysics. Lexington Books. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-0-
7391-7476-0.

• Beebee, Helen; Dodd, Julian (2005). Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate.

Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928356-9.

• Bengtson, Josef (2015). Explorations in Post-Secular Metaphysics.

Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-55336-2.

• Benovsky, Jiri (2016). Meta-metaphysics: On Metaphysical Equivalence,

Primitiveness, and Theory Choice. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-25334-3.

• Berryman, Sylvia (2022). "Ancient Atomism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 2 May 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2024.

• Berthrong, John H. "Neo-Confucian Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 6 February 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2024.

• Berto, Francesco; Jago, Mark (2023). "Impossible Worlds". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 10 February 2021. Retrieved 17
February 2024.

• Bigelow, John C. (1998). "Particulars". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N040-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 24 March 2024.

• Bigelow, John C. (1998a). "Universals". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N065-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
• Bird, Alexander; Tobin, Emma (2024). "Natural Kinds". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 26
March 2024.

• Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Existence". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford

University Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0. Archived from the original on 10
August 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

• Blair, J. Anthony; Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). "Informal Logic: An Overview". Informal

Logic. 20 (2). doi:10.22329/il.v20i2.2262. Archived from the original on 9 December
2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.

• Brenner, Andrew (2015). "Mereological Nihilism and the Special Arrangement

Question". Synthese. 192 (5): 1295–1314. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0619-7.

• Broadbent, Alex (2016). Philosophy for Graduate Students: Metaphysics and

Epistemology. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-39714-4.

• Brown, Christopher M. "Thomas Aquinas". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2024.

• Brown, James Robert; Fehige, Yiftach (2019). "Thought Experiments". Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 21 November 2017. Retrieved 29
October 2021.

• Brumbaugh, Robert S. (1966). "Applied Metaphysics: Truth and Passing Time". The
Review of Metaphysics. 19 (4): 647–666. ISSN 0034-
6632. JSTOR 20124133. OCLC 9970206403. Archived from the original on 20 March
2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

• Brzović, Zdenka. "Natural Kinds". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from

the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 26 March 2024.

• Campbell, Keith (2006). "Ontology". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. 7: Oakeshott – Presupposition (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan
Reference. pp. 21–27. ISBN 978-0-02-865787-5. Archived from the original on 29
January 2021. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

• Carroll, John W.; Markosian, Ned (2010). An Introduction to Metaphysics (1st ed.).
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82629-7.

• Casati, Filippo; Fujikawa, Naoya. "Existence". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 10 August 2023. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
• Chai, David (2020). Dao Companion to Xuanxue 玄學 (Neo-Daoism).
Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-49228-1.

• Chalmers, David J. (2009). "3. Ontological Anti-Realism". Metametaphysics: New

Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Clarendon Press. pp. 77–129. ISBN 978-0-
19-954604-6.

• Cohen, S. Marc; Reeve, C. D. C. (2021). "Aristotle's Metaphysics". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 11 May 2020. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

• Cook, Roy T. (2009). Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh University

Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3197-1.

• Corkum, Philip (2015). "Generality and Logical Constancy". Revista Portuguesa de

Filosofia. 71 (4): 753–768. doi:10.17990/rpf/2015_71_4_0753. ISSN 0870-
5283. JSTOR 43744657.

• Cornell, David. "Material Composition". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 25 March 2024.

• Costa, Damiano. "Persistence in Time". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 17 August 2021. Retrieved 26 March 2024.

• Cowling, Sam (2019). "Universals". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N065-2. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 29 March 2024. Retrieved 25 March 2024.

• Craig, Edward (1998). "Metaphysics". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived from the original on 1 August 2023.
Retrieved 19 March 2024.

• Critchley, Simon (2001). Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford

University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-157832-8.

• Dafermos, Manolis (2021). "The Metaphysics of Psychology and a Dialectical

Perspective". Theory & Psychology. 31 (3): 355–
374. doi:10.1177/0959354320975491.

• Dainton, Barry (2010). "Spatial Anti-realism". Time and Space (2nd ed.). Acumen
Publishing. pp. 245–266. ISBN 978-1-84465-190-0. Archived from the original on 26
March 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.
• Dalal, Neil (2021). "Śaṅkara". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 27 January 2022.
Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Daly, Chris (2009). "To Be". In Poidevin, Robin Le; Peter, Simons; Andrew, McGonigal;
Cameron, Ross P. (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge.
pp. 225–233. ISBN 978-1-134-15585-9.

• Daly, Christopher (2015). "Introduction and Historical Overview". The Palgrave

Handbook of Philosophical Methods. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–
30. doi:10.1057/9781137344557_1. ISBN 978-1-137-34455-7. Archived from the
original on 1 May 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.

• Dancy, R. M. (2004). Plato's Introduction of Forms. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 978-1-139-45623-4.

• Dehsen, Christian von (2013). Philosophers and Religious Leaders.

Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-95102-3.

• Depraz, Nathalie; Varela, Francisco J.; Vermersch, Pierre (2003). On Becoming

Aware: A Pragmatics of Experiencing. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 978-90-272-
9683-2.

• Desmet, Ronald; Irvine, Andrew David (2022). "Alfred North Whitehead". The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Retrieved 1 April 2024.

• Dharamsi, Karim (2017). "Liberation from Solitude: Wittgenstein on Human Finitude

and Possibility". In Peters, Michael A.; Stickney, Jeff (eds.). A Companion to
Wittgenstein on Education: Pedagogical Investigations. Springer Nature Singapore.
pp. 365–378. ISBN 978-981-10-3136-6.

• Dowden, Bradley; Swartz, Norman. "Truth". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved 22 November 2024.

• Drummond, John J. (2022). Historical Dictionary of Husserl's Philosophy. Rowman &

Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-3345-3.

• Dryer, D. P. (2016). Kant's Solution for Verification in Metaphysics.

Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-53632-3.

• Duignan, Brian (2009). "Intuitionism (Ethics)". Encyclopædia

Britannica. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
• Dyke, Heather (2002). "McTaggart and the Truth About Time". In Callender, Craig
(ed.). Time, Reality and Experience. Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–
152. ISBN 978-0-521-52967-9.

• Dynes, Wayne R. (2016). "Creation of Daoism (6th Century BC)". In Curta, Florin;
Holt, Andrew (eds.). Great Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in
Religious History. Bloomsbury. pp. 60–63. ISBN 978-1-61069-566-4.

• Eder, Anna-Maria A.; Lawler, Insa; Van Riel, Raphael (2020). "Philosophical Methods
Under Scrutiny: Introduction to the Special Issue Philosophical
Methods". Synthese. 197 (3): 915–923. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-02051-
2. ISSN 1573-0964. S2CID 54631297.

• Effingham, Nikk; Beebee, Helen; Goff, Philip (2010). Metaphysics: The Key
Concepts. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-85518-4.

• Engel, Pascal (2014). Truth. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-48955-9.

• Erasmus, Jacobus (2018). The Kalām Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment.

Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-73438-5.

• Falguera, José L.; Martínez-Vidal, Concha; Rosen, Gideon (2022). "Abstract

Objects". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived from the original on 22 January 2021. Retrieved 22
March 2024.

• Gallois, Andre (2016). "Identity Over Time". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• George, Siby K. (2015). Heidegger and Development in the Global South. Springer
India. ISBN 978-81-322-2304-7.

• Gerson, Lloyd P. (2002). "Plato's Development and the Development of the Theory of
Forms". In Welton, William A. (ed.). Plato's Forms: Varieties of Interpretation.
Lexington Books. pp. 85–110. ISBN 978-0-7391-0514-6.

• Gilje, Nils; Skirbekk, Gunnar (2017). A History of Western Thought: From Ancient
Greece to the Twentieth Century. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-22604-6.

• Goffi, Jean-Yves; Roux, Sophie (2011). Ierodiakonou, Katerina; Roux, Sophie

(eds.). "On the Very Idea of a Thought Experiment". Thought Experiments in
Methodological and Historical Contexts. Brill: 165–
191. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004201767.i-233.35. ISBN 978-90-04-20177-
 4. S2CID 260640180. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 18
April 2022.

• Göhner, Julia F.; Schrenk, Markus. "Metaphysics of Science". Internet Encyclopedia

of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 April 2024. Retrieved 7 April 2024.

• Goldenbaum, Ursula. "Geometrical Method". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 15 March 2024.

• Goswick, Dana (2018). "6. Are Modal Facts Brute Facts?". In Vintiadis, Elly; Mekios,
Constantinos (eds.). Brute Facts. Oxford University Press. pp. 97–112. ISBN 978-0-
19-875860-0. Archived from the original on 22 March 2024. Retrieved 29
March 2024.

• Graham, Jacob N. "Ancient Greek Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 25 August 2022. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History of Philosophy. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-

98086-6.

• Griffin, Nicholas (1998). "Neutral Monism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N035-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 27 March 2024. Retrieved 27 March 2024.

• Griffin, Nicholas (2013). "Russell and Moore's Revolt against British Idealism". In
Beaney, Michael (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy.
Oxford University Press. pp. 383–
406. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238842.013.0024. ISBN 978-0-19-174978-0.

• Grim, Patrick; Rescher, Nicholas (2023). Theory of Categories: Key Instruments of

Human Understanding. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-83998-815-8.

• Grütter, Rolf; Bauer-Messmer, Bettina (2007). "Towards Spatial Reasoning in the

Semantic Web: A Hybrid Knowledge Representation System Architecture". In
Fabrikant, Sara; Wachowicz, Monica (eds.). The European Information Society:
Leading the Way with Geo-information. Springer. pp. 349–364. ISBN 978-3-540-
72385-1.

• Gutting, Gary (2009). What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic
Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85621-8.

• Guyer, Paul; Horstmann, Rolf-Peter (2023). "Idealism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 31
December 2024.
• Hale, Bob (2020). Essence and Existence. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
259622-2.

• Hameed, Adil; Preece, Alun; Sleeman, Derek (2013). "Ontology Reconciliation". In

Staab, Steffen; Studer, Rudi (eds.). Handbook on Ontologies. Springer. pp. 231–
250. ISBN 978-3-540-24750-0.

• Hamlyn, D. W. (2005). "Metaphysics, History of". The Oxford Companion to

Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 590–593. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.

• Hancock, Roger (2006). "Metaphysics, History of". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). 6:

Masaryk – Nussbaum. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale,
Macmillan Reference. pp. 183–197. ISBN 978-0-02-865786-8.

• Hanna, Robert (2009). Rationality and Logic. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-26311-5.

• Hart, W. D. (1998). "Meaning and Verification". Routledge Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-X025-1. ISBN 978-0-415-
25069-6. Archived from the original on 2 April 2024. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Hawley, Katherine (2016). "Applied Metaphysics". In Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper;

Brownlee, Kimberley; Coady, David (eds.). A Companion to Applied Philosophy. John
Wiley & Sons. pp. 165–179. ISBN 978-1-118-86911-6.

• Hawley, Katherine (2018). "Social Science as a Guide to Social

Metaphysics?". Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 49 (2): 187–
198. doi:10.1007/s10838-017-9389-5. hdl:10023/12888.

• Hawley, Katherine (2023). "Temporal Parts". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 26
March 2024.

• Healey, Richard (2016). "17. Metaphysics in Science". In Humphreys, Paul (ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 356–
377. ISBN 978-0-19-063070-6.

• Heckmann, Dominikus (2006). Ubiquitous User Modeling. IOS Press. ISBN 978-3-
89838-297-7.

• Hettche, Matt; Dyck, Corey (2019). "Christian Wolff". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 8 August 2019. Retrieved 2 April 2024.
• Heyndels, Sybren; Bengtson, Audun; Mesel, Benjamin De (2024). "Introduction". P. F.
Strawson and His Philosophical Legacy. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 978-
0-19-285847-4.

• Hoad, T. F. (1993). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford

University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-283098-2.

• Hoefer, Carl; Huggett, Nick; Read, James (2023). "Absolute and Relational Space
and Motion: Classical Theories". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 26 March 2024.

• Hofweber, Thomas (2022). "The Case Against Higher-Order

Metaphysics". Metaphysics. 5 (1): 29–50. doi:10.5334/met.83.

• Hofweber, Thomas (2023). "Logic and Ontology". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2024.

• Holland, Nancy J. "Deconstruction". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved 28 November 2024.

• Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and

History (2nd ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-23063-2.

• Hylton, Peter (2007). Quine. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-92270-3.

• Jackson, Frank (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual

Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823618-4.

• Jaksland, Rasmus (2023). "Naturalized Metaphysics or Displacing Metaphysicians to

Save Metaphysics". Synthese. 201 (6) 199. doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04207-1.

• Janaway, Christopher (1999). "10. The Primacy of Will". Self and World in
Schopenhauer's Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 248–270. ISBN 978-0-19-
825003-6. Archived from the original on 2 April 2024. Retrieved 4 April 2024.

• Janiak, Andrew (2022). "Kant's Views on Space and Time". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved 26 March 2024.

• Jubien, Michael (2004). "Metaphysics". In Shand, John (ed.). Fundamentals of

Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 36–63. ISBN 978-1-134-58831-2.

• Kane, Robert (2011). "Introduction". In Kane, Robert (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Free Will. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–35. ISBN 978-0-19-987556-6.
• Khlentzos, Drew (2021). "Challenges to Metaphysical Realism". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019. Retrieved 18
March 2024.

• Kim, Jaegwon (2005). "Mind, Problems of the Philosophy of". The Oxford Companion
to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 607–612. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-
7. Archived from the original on 11 April 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

• Kind, Amy (2018). Philosophy of Mind in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries.
The History of the Philosophy of Mind. Vol. 6. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-01938-8.

• Kind, Amy; Stoljar, Daniel (2023). What is Consciousness?: A Debate.

Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-86666-7.

• Kirk, G. S. (2004). "Presocratics". In Rée, Jonathan; Urmson, J. O. (eds.). The Concise

Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 308–317. ISBN 978-1-134-
33177-2.

• Kirk, Robert (2023). "Zombies". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 28
September 2020. Retrieved 15 March 2024.

• Kirwan, Christopher (2005). "Identity". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford

University Press. pp. 417–418. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Archived from the original
on 11 April 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

• Klement, Kevin (2019). "Russell's Logical Atomism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 11 April 2024. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Koons, Robert C.; Pickavance, Timothy H. (2015). Metaphysics: The

Fundamentals (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9574-4.

• Korfmacher, Carsten. "Personal Identity". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 9 February 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• Kozierkiewicz, Adrianna; Pietranik, Marcin (2019). "A Formal Framework for the
Ontology Evolution". In Nguyen, Ngoc Thanh; Gaol, Ford Lumban; Hong, Tzung-Pei;
Trawiński, Bogdan (eds.). Intelligent Information and Database Systems: 11th Asian
Conference, ACIIDS 2019, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, April 8–11, 2019, Proceedings,
Part I. Springer. pp. 16–27. ISBN 978-3-030-14799-0.
• Kriegel, Uriah (2016). "Philosophy as Total Axiomatics: Serious Metaphysics,
Scrutability Bases, and Aesthetic Evaluation". Journal of the American Philosophical
Association. 2 (2): 272–290. doi:10.1017/apa.2016.8. Archived from the original on
29 January 2024. Retrieved 11 April 2024.

• Kuhn, Thomas S. (2010). "Possible Worlds in History of Science". In Sture, Allén

(ed.). Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences: Proceedings of Nobel
Symposium 65. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 9–32. ISBN 978-3-11-086685-8.

• Lacey, Alan (2005). "Intuition". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford

University Press. p. 442. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.

• Lawson, Joanna (2020). "Common Sense in Metaphysics". The Cambridge

Companion to Common-Sense Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 185–
207. ISBN 978-1-108-47600-3. Archived from the original on 18 March 2024.
Retrieved 18 March 2024.

• Liston, Michael. "Scientific Realism and Antirealism". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 14 March 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

• Littlejohn, Ronnie. "Daoist Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 29 March 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.

• Lizzini, Olga (2021). "Ibn Sina's Metaphysics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 11 April 2024. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Lohmar, Dieter (2010). "IV. Intuition in Mathematics: On the Function of Eidetic

Variation in Mathematical Proofs". In Hartimo, Mirja (ed.). Phenomenology and
Mathematics. Springer. pp. 73–90. ISBN 978-90-481-3729-9.

• Look, Brandon C. (2020). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 5 August 2020. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Lorkowski, C. M. "Hume, David: Causation". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 27 March 2024. Retrieved 27 March 2024.

• Loux, Michael J.; Crisp, Thomas M. (2017). Metaphysics: A Contemporary

Introduction (4th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-63933-1.

• Lowe, E. J. (2005). "Particulars and Non-particulars". The Oxford Companion to

Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Archived from the
original on 11 April 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.
• Lowe, E. J. (2005a). "Truth". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University
Press. pp. 926–927. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Archived from the original on 11 April
2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

• Lowe, E. J. (2005b). "Existence". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford

University Press. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.

• Lowe, E. J. (2013). "Metaphysical Knowledge". In Haug, Matthew C.

(ed.). Philosophical Methodology: The Armchair or the Laboratory?. Routledge.
pp. 126–144. ISBN 978-1-135-10703-1.

• Macarthur, David (2020). "Richard Rorty and (the End of) Metaphysics (?)". In
Malachowski, Alan (ed.). A Companion to Rorty. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 163–
177. ISBN 978-1-118-97217-5.

• MacBride, Fraser (2022). "Truthmakers". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 26 April 2024.

• MacDonald, Cynthia (2008). Varieties of Things: Foundations of Contemporary

Metaphysics. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-5444-4.

• MacFarlane, John (2017). "Logical Constants". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 17 March 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2021.

• MacLeod, Mary C.; Rubenstein, Eric M. "Universals". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 24 February 2024. Retrieved 24
March 2024.

• Magnus, P. D. (2005). Forall X: An Introduction to Formal Logic. SUNY

Press. ISBN 978-1-64176-026-3. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021.
Retrieved 29 December 2021.

• Manley, David (2009). "1. Introduction: A Guided Tour of

Metametaphysics". Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology.
Clarendon Press. pp. 1–37. ISBN 978-0-19-954604-6.

• Marenbon, John (2009). "Introduction: Reading Boethius Whole". In Marenbon, John

(ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Boethius. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–
10. ISBN 978-1-139-82815-4.

• Maurin, Anna-Sofia (2019). "Particulars". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N040-2. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.
• McCormick, Matt. "Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics". Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved 31 December 2024.

• McDaniel, Kris (2017). The Fragmentation of Being. Oxford University

Press. ISBN 978-0-19-103037-6.

• McDaniel, Kris (2020). This Is Metaphysics: An Introduction. John Wiley &

Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-40077-7.

• McLaughlin, Brian P. (1999). "Philosophy of Mind". In Audi, Robert (ed.). The

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 684–
694. ISBN 978-0-521-63722-0.

• McLean, G. F. (2003). "Metaphysics". New Catholic Encyclopedia. Gale and Catholic

University of America. ISBN 978-0-7876-4013-2. Archived from the original on 9 July
2021. Retrieved 8 July 2021.

• Meinertsen, Bo R. (2018). Metaphysics of States of Affairs: Truthmaking, Universals,

and a Farewell to Bradley's Regress. Springer Nature Singapore. ISBN 978-981-13-
3068-1.

• Menzel, Christopher (2023). "Possible Worlds". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 24
March 2024.

• Miller, Kristie (2018). "Persistence". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/0123456789-N126-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 26 March 2024. Retrieved 26 March 2024.

• Misak, Cheryl J. (2008). "Scientific Realism, Anti-Realism, and Empiricism". In

Shook, John R.; Margolis, Joseph (eds.). A Companion to Pragmatism. John Wiley &
Sons. pp. 398–409. ISBN 978-1-4051-5311-9.

• Morris, Michael (2017). "Metaphysics, Philosophy, and the Philosophy of Language".

In Hale, Bob; Wright, Crispin; Miller, Alexander (eds.). A Companion to the
Philosophy of Language. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-1-118-97208-3.

• Morris, William Edward; Brown, Charlotte R. (2023). "David Hume". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 3 May 1998. Retrieved 31 March 2024.

• Morton, Adam (2005). "Mind". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford

University Press. p. 603. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
• Mumford, Stephen, ed. (2003). "11. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism". Russell on
Metaphysics: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell. Routledge. pp. 97–
120. ISBN 978-1-136-90272-7.

• Mumford, Stephen (2009). "Passing Powers Around". Monist. 92 (1): 94–

111. doi:10.5840/monist20099215.

• Mumford, Stephen (2012). Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction (1st ed.). Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965712-4.

• Mumford, Stephen; Anjum, Rani Lill (2013). "8. Primitivism: Is Causation the Most
Basic Thing?". Causation: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 85–
95. ISBN 978-0-19-968443-4.

• Mumford, Stephen; Tugby, Matthew (2013). "1. Introduction What Is the Metaphysics
of Science?". Metaphysics and Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–28. ISBN 978-
0-19-967452-7.

• Nelson, Michael (2022). "Existence". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 3
September 2018. Retrieved 6 August 2023.

• Ney, Alyssa (2014). Metaphysics: An Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-

64074-9.

• Noonan, Harold; Curtis, Ben (2022). "Identity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 23 July 2020. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• Nuttall, Jon (2013). An Introduction to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-
7456-6807-9.

• Oddie, Graham (2006). "Metaphysics". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). The

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 6: Masaryk – Nussbaum (2nd ed.). Macmillan.
pp. 169–183. ISBN 978-0-02-865786-8.

• OED staff (2025). "Metaphysics, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.

• Olson, Eric T. (2001). "Mind–Body Problem". In Blakemore, Colin; Jennett, Sheila

(eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
852403-8. Archived from the original on 28 March 2024. Retrieved 29 March 2024.
• Olson, Eric T. (2023). "Personal Identity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• O’Connor, Timothy; Franklin, Christopher (2022). "Free Will". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• Palmer, Clare (1998). Environmental Ethics and Process Thinking. Clarendon

Press. ISBN 978-0-19-826952-6.

• Parent, Ted. "Modal Metaphysics". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 22
March 2024.

• Pavel, Thomas G. (1986). Fictional Worlds. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-
674-29966-5.

• Pelczar, Michael (2015). Sensorama: A Phenomenalist Analysis of Spacetime and Its

Contents. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-104706-0.

• Perkins, Franklin (2023). "Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 1 February 2024. Retrieved 4 April 2024.

• Fritz, Peter; Jones, Nicholas K. (2024). "Higher-Order Metaphysics: An Introduction".

In Peter, Jones; Fritz, Nicholas K. (eds.). Higher-Order Metaphysics (1st ed.). Oxford
University Press. pp. 3–46. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192894885.003.0001. ISBN 978-0-
19-289488-5.

• Peters, Michael A. (2021). "2.c Wittgenstein and the Rise of Linguistic

Philosophy". Wittgenstein, Education and the Problem of Rationality. Springer Nature
Singapore. pp. 31–45. ISBN 978-981-15-9972-9.

• Perrett, Roy W. (2016). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85356-9.

• Pihlström, Sami (2009). Pragmatist Metaphysics: An Essay on the Ethical Grounds of

Ontology. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-84706-593-3.

• Politis, Vasilis (2004). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the

Metaphysics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-25147-1.
• Pols, Edward (1993). "The Metaphor of a Foundation for Knowledge". In Bogaard,
Paul A.; Treash, Gordon (eds.). Metaphysics as Foundation: Essays in Honor of Ivor
Leclerc. SUNY Press. pp. 200–223. ISBN 978-0-7914-1258-9.

• Pradhan, Ramesh Chandra (2020). Metaphysics of Consciousness: The Indian

Vedantic Perspective. Springer Nature Singapore. ISBN 978-981-15-8064-2.

• Proops, Ian (2022). "Wittgenstein's Logical Atomism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Pust, Joel (2019). "Intuition". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics

Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 8 August 2024.

• Ramsey, William (2022). "Eliminative Materialism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 27 March 2024.

• Rangaswami, Sudhakshina (2012). The Roots of Vedānta. Penguin Books

India. ISBN 978-0-14-306445-9.

• Rea, Michael C. (2021). Metaphysics: The Basics (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-
367-13607-9.

• Remes, Pauliina (2014). Neoplatonism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-49289-4.

• Reynolds, Jack. "Derrida, Jacques". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

• Roberts, John T. (2016). "16. Laws of Nature". In Humphreys, Paul (ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 337–
355. ISBN 978-0-19-063070-6.

• Roberts, Austin (2016a). "Divine Differentials: The Metaphysics of Gilles Deleuze and
Its Significance for Contemporary Theology". In Shults, F. LeRon; Powell-Jones,
Lindsay (eds.). Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Religion. Bloomsbury. pp. 145–
162. ISBN 978-1-4742-6690-1.

• Robinet, Isabelle (2013). "Chongxuan". In Pregadio, Fabrizio (ed.). The Encyclopedia

of Taoism. Routledge. pp. 274–276. ISBN 978-1-135-79634-1.

• Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo (2000). "What Is the Problem of

Universals?". Mind. 109 (434): 255–273. doi:10.1093/mind/109.434.255.

• Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo (2006). "Truthmakers". Philosophy Compass. 1 (2): 186–

200. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00018.x.
• Romero, Gustavo E. (2018). Scientific Philosophy. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-97631-
0.

• Ruzsa, Ferenc. "Sankhya". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the

original on 19 May 2019. Retrieved 30 March 2024.

• Shaffer, Michael J. (2015). "The Problem of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions and
Conceptual Analysis". Metaphilosophy. 46 (4/5): 555–
563. doi:10.1111/meta.12158. ISSN 0026-
1068. JSTOR 26602327. S2CID 148551744. Archived from the original on 13
February 2022. Retrieved 15 February 2022.

• Shapiro, Stewart; Kouri Kissel, Teresa (2022). "Classical Logic". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 3 May 1998. Retrieved 15 August 2023.

• Shun'ei, Tagawa (2014). Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only

Buddhism. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-86171-895-5.

• Sider, Theodore (2009). "13. Ontological Realism". Metametaphysics: New Essays

on the Foundations of Ontology. Clarendon Press. pp. 384–423. ISBN 978-0-19-
954604-6.

• Simons, Peter (2013). "The Thread of Persistence". In Kanzian, Christian

(ed.). Persistence. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 165–184. ISBN 978-3-11-032705-2.

• Sleigh, R. C. (2005). "Identity of Indiscernibles". The Oxford Companion to

Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 418. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.

• Smart, Ninian (2008). World Philosophies (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-
41188-2.

• Smith, David Woodruff (2018). "Phenomenology". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 10
November 2024.

• Smith, Daniel; Protevi, John; Voss, Daniela (2023). "Gilles Deleuze". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved 11 August 2024.

• Stern, Robert (2008). "Hegel's Idealism". In Beiser, Frederick C. (ed.). The Cambridge
Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge University
Press. pp. 135–173. ISBN 978-1-139-82718-8.
• Stern, Robert; Cheng, Tony (2023). "Transcendental Arguments". The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved 17 March 2024.

• Stuart, David (2016). Practical Ontologies for Information Professionals. Facet

Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78330-062-4.

• Stubenberg, Leopold; Wishon, Donovan (2023). "Neutral Monism". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 15 July 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2024.

• Studtmann, Paul (2024). "Aristotle's Categories". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 22
March 2024.

• Svare, Helge (2006). Body and Practice in Kant. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-4118-1.

• Sweeney, E. (2016). Logic, Theology and Poetry in Boethius, Anselm, Abelard, and
Alan of Lille: Words in the Absence of Things. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-
06373-1.

• Tahko, Tuomas E. (2015). An Introduction to Metametaphysics. Cambridge

University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-07729-4.

• Tahko, Tuomas (2018). "Meta-metaphysics". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N127-1. hdl:1983/9dafefd5-5280-49b5-
9085-de78b6ebb656. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived from the original on 20
March 2024. Retrieved 20 March 2024.

• Tallant, Jonathan (2017). Metaphysics: An Introduction (2nd ed.).

Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-3500-0671-3.

• Taminiaux, Jacques (1991). Heidegger and the Project of Fundamental Ontology.

State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-2179-7.

• Thomasson, Amie (2022). "Categories". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 8
October 2023. Retrieved 20 March 2024.

• Timpe, Kevin. "Free Will". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the
original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 28 March 2024.

• Turner, William (1911). "Metaphysics". Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. The

Encyclopedia Press. OCLC 1391341.
• Van Inwagen, Peter (2023). "Existence". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the
original on 29 June 2023. Retrieved 7 August 2023.

• Van Inwagen, Peter (2024). Metaphysics (5th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-
40916-0.

• Van Inwagen, Peter; Sullivan, Meghan; Bernstein, Sara (2023). "Metaphysics". The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Archived from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 17
March 2024.

• Van Miltenburg, Niels (2022). "Causality, Determination and Free Will: Towards an
Anscombean Account of Free Action". Synthese. 200 (4) 279. doi:10.1007/s11229-
022-03700-3.

• Varzi, Achille (2019). "Mereology". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 28
September 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2024.

• Velez, Abraham. "Buddha". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the

original on 4 February 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.

• Vihvelin, Kadri (2022). "Arguments for Incompatibilism". The Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 1
May 2024.

• Wang, Yueqing; Bao, Qinggang; Guan, Guoxing (2020). "1. Way (Dao, 道)". History of
Chinese Philosophy Through Its Key Terms. Nanjing University Press. pp. 1–
18. ISBN 978-981-15-2572-8.

• Wardy, Robert (1998). "Categories". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N005-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-
6. Archived from the original on 22 March 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024.

• Waxman, Wayne (2006). "David Hume (1711–1776)". In Borchert, Donald M.

(ed.). Gadamer – Just War Theory. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.).
Macmillan. pp. 486–514. ISBN 0-02-865784-5.

• Weatherson, Brian (2023). "The Problem of the Many". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 19
November 2024.

• Weisberg, Josh. "Hard Problem of Consciousness". Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Archived from the original on 19 July 2023. Retrieved 27 March 2024.
 • Wheeler, Michael (2020). "Martin Heidegger". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11
August 2024.

• White, Alan (2019). Methods of Metaphysics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-51427-2.

• Wiland, Eric; Driver, Julia (2022). "Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe". The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Retrieved 23 November 2024.

• Wildberg, Christian (2021). "Neoplatonism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 22
November 2024.

• Willaschek, Marcus (2018). Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics: The Dialectic of

Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-59607-7.

• Williamson, John (2012). "Probabilistic Theories". In Beebee, Helen; Hitchcock,

Christopher; Menzies, Peter (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford
University Press. pp. 185–212. ISBN 978-0-19-162946-4.

• Wilsch, Tobias (2017). "Sophisticated Modal Primitivism". Philosophical

Issues. 27 (1): 428–448. doi:10.1111/phis.12100.

• Wood, Allen W. (2009). "Kantianism". In Kim, Jaekwon; Sosa, Ernest; Rosenkrantz,

Gary S. (eds.). A Companion to Metaphysics. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 353–
358. ISBN 978-1-4443-0853-2.

• Wu, Guo (2022). An Anthropological Inquiry Into Confucianism: Ritual, Emotion, and
Rational Principle. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-7936-5432-8.

External links

Library resources about

Metaphysics

• Resources in your library

• Resources in other libraries

• Metaphysics at PhilPapers

• Metaphysics at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project

 • Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). "Metaphysics". Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658.

• Metaphysics at Encyclopædia Britannica

• Metaphysics public domain audiobook at LibriVox

• v

• t

• e

Metaphysics

•
 •

• •

•
•

•
 •

• •

•
•

•
 •

•
•
•
 •

•
•
•

•
 •

Articles related to metaphysics

•
 •

• •

• •

• •

•
•
•

•
•
•
 •

• •

•
•
•

• •

• •

•
 •

• •

• •

•
 •

• •

•
 •

•
•
•

•
 •

•
•
•

• •

•
 •

•
•
•

• •

•
 •

•
•

•
•
•

•
 •

•
•
•

•
 •

•
•
•

•
•

• •

•
 •

• •

•
•
•

•
 •

• 

•
 •

•
•
•

•
 •

•
 •

•
•

•
 •

• •

•
 •

• •

•
•

•
 •

•
•
•

•
 •

• •

•
 •

• •

•
 •

•
•
•

• •

Portal:

• Philosophy
 Metaphysics at Wikipedia's sister projects:

• Definitions from Wiktionary

• Media from Commons

• Quotations from Wikiquote

• Texts from Wikisource

• Textbooks from Wikibooks

• Resources from Wikiversity

Authority control databases

• •

• •

Category:

• Metaphysics

• This page was last edited on 15 January 2026, at 14:07 (UTC).