Redefining Metaphysics: The Engineering Model for Reality and Philosophy

Why am I redefining metaphysics? When I taught metaphysics in the past, students looked confused. They found it difficult to understand the traditional spectrum from objectivity of positivism to phenomenology, and wrestled with various aspects of subjectivity (pragmatism, existentialism, postmodernism, solipsism).  These experiences led me to conclude that I needed make metaphysics palatable to my students.

For years I have researched human factors engineering (ergonomics). Ergonomics engineers design objects and processes to be safe and easy for users, thus avoid designs that are user unfriendly (unsafe and difficult), and user too friendly (too safe). I realized that this could be a good model with which to explain metaphysics. In developing my model, I found problems in contemporary metaphysics and philosophy, general education, and human factors which I had to resolve to bring about my redefinition of metaphysics.

Philosophy has a problem with the inquiry into reality and other topics. Perhaps the most prominent and visible is the rivalry between Continental and Analytic views. Continental usually means phenomenology and existentialism. Neither Continental nor Analytic positions see philosophy as comprised of two pillars, Analytic and Continental. Each says it is valid philosophy, and the other invalid. Fortunately, the American Philosophical Association acknowledges and encourages the need to bridge the Continental-Analytic divide. It has a group with that in mind.

Another problem is philosophy’s relevance. A.N. Whitehead called philosophy “critique of abstractions.” It organizes and gives context to data, disciplines, theories, any part which we analyze from the whole. Contemporary thinker, Mary Midgley in Philosophy Now, No. 103, 2016,  has called philosophy the “meta-discipline.” She argues that philosophy is more than a disciplines among others. It is the fundamental discipline. Most philosophers do not look at philosophy as an orienting discipline. Philosophy is fundamental and orienting in that it analyzes assumptions underlying any technology, art, and science. Philosophy continues fighting an uphill battle to justify itself, indeed, to suggest its special role in knowledge and among the disciplines.

Within philosophy, Midgley seems alone in arguing for it as the meta-discipline. Yet, she does not spell out how philosophy is the meta-discipline. Specifically, her work speaks of philosophy itself, not directly of metaphysics as basic to other topics, or to other disciplines. For metaphysics to be the link to  philosophical branches, and other disciplines, a seamless link requires it be homological or isomorphic. Homology or isomorphs are basic, generic structures of which applications are variations.  That is, metaphysics would need to be a set of principles applicable to other areas of philosophic and nonphilosophical thought.  Except for the field of General System Theory, no other discipline develops the idea of isomorphs or homologies. And, General System Theory is not a mainstream discipline.

Philosophy and human factors engineering see each other as almost mutually exclusive. They do not see human factors as a model for understanding metaphysics. Engineers do not consider their field related to philosophy, and virtually no philosopher looks at human factors as link to philosophical thought. Yet, both are saying the same thing in different words. Metaphysics acknowledges the spectrum from positivism and analytics to subjectivity. Positivism and most Analytic thought seeks objectivity, phenomenology generally accepts an objectivity that is colored by subjectivity, and existentialism represents thought emphasizing subjectivity. Human factors looks at the interface between the objective environment and subject as user. For human factors, engineers design how chairs are shaped, how aircraft cockpit instruments are designed. There is little philosophical or metaphysical talk in engineering; philosophers do acknowledge a philosophy of technology.

If there is a Continental-Analytic divide, there is also but much less discussed philosophy or a metaphysics-human factors engineering gap.

In philosophy, especially metaphysics, we find the dual themes of change and stability. Today, evolution is a major example of how change is discussed, and religion/creationism a major example of stability. But again, neither evolutionists nor creationists see the other as an option. Mostly, each polar view argues that the other is invalid.

Just as philosophers have a difficult time justifying their discipline and its relevance, it seems folly to suggest to higher education that metaphysics is basic to general education. Indeed, colleges and universities increasingly wonder about the relevance of liberal arts as such.  Even in the best of times, it appeared that metaphysics was far removed from knowledge and specialization. Philosophy was at best simply unrelated to the real world. Contemporary higher education continues to not see metaphysics or philosophy as basic to liberal arts.  I argue that technology, art, and science derive from metaphysics. Aristotle’s Metaphysics takes the position that form is in matter, whether the subject is technology, art, or science. Within philosophy, my position is that ethics, epistemology, social thinking, theology, and other fields derive from metaphysical options. Higher education debates whether students need general education or job learning. That debate simply does not see metaphysics as linked in a fundamental way to human betterment, job preparation, or any connection to the world around us.

An engineering department would wonder why any thinker, philosopher or otherwise, defends metaphysics as basic to general education. The department would not see how human factors engineering helps us understand metaphysics.  Unfortunately, philosophy is seen as almost mere speculation, and technology as productive. Perhaps the only valid aspect of philosophy that might appeal to engineering could be Analytic thought, where positivism or Analytics believe in the legitimacy of systems, logic, and reason. Computer science and increasing advances in Artificial Intelligence roughly correlate with systematic, logical, and rational reality.

Philosophy has the problem of internal compartmentalization.  Plato and Aristotle differentiate metaphysics,  epistemology, social thinking, and Aristotle writes a separate work on ethics. Emmanuel Levinas talks of philosophy as wisdom of love, thus has ethics as first philosophy. Thomas Aquinas and other Middle Ages thinkers saw metaphysics as first philosophy. In modern thought, Rene Descartes tells us epistemology is crucial. Most philosophers do not look at metaphysics as theoretical and applied. For them, ethics, social inquiry, epistemology, and theology would not be derived metaphysics. When philosophers and students discuss one of these topics, they typically do not show the link of that one to another branch. It appears almost an insult or perhaps incompetency to suggest that ethics, epistemology, the state, theology are derivative from metaphysics.  That compartmentalization implies there is reality, and the branches. Are the branches unreal? That cannot be, for every topic in philosophy does consider itself dealing with a reality.

I see a problem in philosophy’s view of metaphysics. Philosophers continue to think of metaphysics as a branch of philosophy. For them, metaphysics, while inquiry into reality, is only a branch. It is thus equal as a branch to all other branches, such as in Manuel Velasquez’s Philosophy: A Text of Readings. He lists epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics as the three branches, and suggests that there are also various “philosophies of…” as for example, of art, education, and others. One does not look at metaphysics, and then determine a set of options or principles that underlie other topics. This view supposes that reality is a one thing, and knowing, being moral, belonging to a state, believing or denying God,  are topics mainly different from reality. Metaphysics, then, is being undervalued and underestimated.

I have never heard a philosopher say that we need to keep metaphysics in mind,  to understand the sources of knowing, the ideas regarding God, issues in morality, origins and other aspects of the state, concepts of truth and of the disciplines. And I have not heard philosophers indicate that to get a clearer picture of metaphysics or any branch, it is fine to think of how human factors engineering relates to metaphysics. Traditional metaphysics as the spectrum from positivism through phenomenology, to variations of subjectivity, is insufficiently abstract. I argue for a spectrum from structure to limited wholes. I would also raise and expand ergonomics to a higher level of abstraction, where engineers design in terms of training professionals to deal with objects and events.

Ergonomics helps us see metaphysics better. In turn, it helps us to understand how metaphysics and ergonomics, linked, can lead to appreciating the branches of philosophy and interdisciplinary. My book, Unified Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Metaphysics, Cyberethics, and Liberal arts, answers the questions above. It develops metaphysics as a unified view of options for object and subject, and change and stability underlying branches and disciplines,  and an expanded, more abstract ergonomics as a model for metaphysics, philosophy as basic to liberal arts.

Michael M. Kazanjian teaches Philosophy, Ethics, and World Religion at Triton College. His publications and research include two books, Phenomenology and Education (Rodopi, 1998) and Learning Values Lifelong: From Inert Ideas to Wholes (Rodopi, 2002).

Michael M. Kazanjian

Michael M. Kazanjian teaches college philosophy. Kazanjian's books, articles, presentations, and conference papes, are interdisciplinary, showing that philosophy touches on all technology, art and science. The expansion of knowledge increasingly reveals how philosophy continually puts disciplines into integrated perspective. His third book, Unified Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Metaphysics, Cyberethics, and Liberal Arts, alludes to MIT's notion that students "do" in laboratories, and in class "think about" doing in labs. Physical activity and lab experience is good as part of a teaching and learning interaction with cognitive, reflective acts to put the bodily experiences into perspective.