In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Iam extremely pleased to have the opportunity of a second edition of this book, and that pleasure is augmented by the volume’s appearing in paperback. Although the basic structure of the book has been retained, changes have occurred in every chapter. in some cases i have, i think, succeeded in making an argument or a claim clearer, or better justified—at any rate, the grounds offered for it are more clearly displayed. in a number of places i have added further developments of a line of thought or argument that appeared in the first edition. there are also a few instances where i have thought better of a claim or argument made earlier, and revised or deleted it. throughout the volume i have attempted to provide more extensive citations, both from the history of metaphysics and from recent discussions of my topics. i find increasing identification in recent literature and, perhaps still more, in informal discussion at conferences and the presentation of papers in colloquia, of what gets dubbed “analytic metaphysics.” the phrase signals, i think, that metaphysics has had a recognized renewal as a respectable part of philosophy, at any rate among philosophers who are labelled (sometimes by themselves) analytic. there should be little doubt that the present book will be a pigeon to place in just that indicated hole. At the same time, i regard the label as, in a number of respects, unfortunate. Western philosophy has had metaphysics from its very beginnings in the 6th century before the common era, and very few of its topics, or the positions taken on them, failed to appear at some time or P R e F A C e t O t H e S e C O n d e d i t i O n viii ReALitY: Fundamental topics in Metaphysics other in the course of the development of ancient philosophy over several hundred years. Western philosophy also had “anti-metaphysics” not very long after it had metaphysics. their symbiotic interplay has continued in intermittent articulations over the many hundreds of years since. it would be surprising if both notes don’t continue to be sounded as further hundreds of years of philosophical development present themselves, in spite of efforts by pro-metaphysicians like myself to see anti-metaphysics finally and definitively disposed of. there may or may not be special features of method or philosophical style that arrived with or developed in the wake of the “foundation” of analytic philosophy by Frege, Russell, and Moore, but, on the whole and mostly and in general, there is good reason to see very much more continuity, and similarity, with metaphysical work of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the early modern period in the explorations of metaphysical themes and topics that currently engage philosophers. One may also reasonably deplore, in any case, the tribalism involved in forwarding versions of the claim that readers or hearers need to be informed that it is a member of a particular philosophical clan who is bringing ideas to their attention, or that they won’t “get it,” or have some appropriate or expected variety of sympathies, unless they have had that clan’s reading experiences and trained sympathies. there is, to be sure, a shared body of western philosophical thought, from thales to Kant (inclusive), with great variations with respect to who, over the span of those 2,400 years, is given what degree of prominence, and on what topics. there are also many contemporary philosophers for whom no work has appeared that need have more significance than a place in one’s educational background since, say, about 1740, or, for some, considerably later than that. the latter remark is intended to extend a welcoming hand to philosophers who aren’t primarily or significantly grounded in the history of philosophy, or who don’t want their investigations particularly couched in an historical patois. Some work just is of course unavoidably technical. So it is with much in the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza or Kant. Some technicalities are more recent ones, and may be found in several philosophers and not just one. Let them be explained then. those who want to know about reality will not be unwilling to try to figure out what they may need to. ...

Share