1338.I Can Only

SCANNED PDF

I can only wonder whether I couldn't make my points more effectively if I were to distinguish more systematically, and therefore more clearly and consistently, between (1) explicating metaphysicsfonlUllly and (2) explicating metaphysics l1ulterially.

The first way of explicating metaphysics would require clarifying "being," or "reality," more or less as I've done in my 'Ten Theses," by focusing on "the ontological difference," in the sense of the difference between "a being," or "a reality"(das Seiende, eill Seiendes) and "being," or "reality," or "reality as such" (tins Seill). Ideally, this would be done so as to leave room for any attemptclassical, revisionary, neoclassical, or what have you-to fill in this purely formal clarification by explicating some material answer to the question, What is "being," or "reality"? 

The second way, then, would require arguing for this, that, or the other material answer to this question-including my neoclassical answer, according to which "being" is either concrete or abstract, and concrete being is "becoming" (or "concrescence"), while abstract being is the necessary conditions of the possibility of "becoming" (or "concrescence")--the most abstract of which are, in the case of metaphysics in the strict sense, solely what I distinguish as "trascendentals," and, in the case of metaphysics in the broad sense, also what J mean by "existentiaJs." 

An instructive example of proceeding in these two ways is offered in effect by lvor Leclerc in Whitehead's Metaphysics. Leclerc argues that Whitehead entirely agrees with Aristotle in understanding metaphysics as the attempt to conceive "a complete fact," or !la complete existence." "By 'a complete fact' VVhitehead means precisely what Aristotle meant by the that which 'is in this sense.'" Thus, "[wlhen Whitehead says the problem [sc. of metaphysicsl is 'to conceive a complete fact' he means thereby what AristotJe meant in declaring the problem to be: 'what that is whjch is in this sense [sc. in the sense of ouolul.'.." (17 f.). But, of course, as Leclerc goes on to show at great length in the rest of his book, \Vhitehead's soilltion to the problem significantly differs from Aristotle's precisely because he takes "a complete fact," or a 'funy existent' entity," to be "an actual entity," as distinct from "a particular and actually existing thing," which is to say, an enduring individual that Aristotle takes (1)Otu properly to refer to. So whether Leclerc ever Inakes my distinction between "formal" and "material"and I have not confirmed that he does-he certainly employs it, or something very like it, in arguing for his understanding of Whitehad's relation to "the great philosophical tradition."

1 September 2008; rev. 15 October 2009