Is there a theorem in metaphysics that basically says, "Biting the bullet will be inevitable in any metaphysical theory?"

Question

Given the scope of metaphysics, it seems that our desire to have a completely intuitive explanation of "why" is hopelessly naive.

I have a feeling that there is a metaphysical theorem that basically says that "The true metaphysical theory will necessarily contain elements that defy your intuitions".

Intuitively (yes, ironic) this makes sense to me and suggests that its not about finding the perfectly intuitive metaphysical framework, but the one whose counterintuitive demands seems most justified.

Are there metaphysicians who has said something similar? It kind of reminds me of the "no free lunch theorem" in economics.

Answer 1

“Biting the bullet” means for metaphysicians to say goodbye to nearly all classical metaphysics.

1. In the hour of birth the term metaphysics denotes a specific collection of Aristotle’s lectures. In modern language these lectures belong to ontology, epistemology and philosophy of science.

   Since then, the range of metaphysics was all-embracing. Its followers claimed to have found concepts and principle which are universally applicable and valid – in particular to explain the non-physical domain of our world.

2. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason showed for the first time what “Biting the bullet” means for metaphysicians: To accept the limit of pure reason and to restrict knowledge to the empirical domain.

   Kant did not eliminate the domain of ideas, of course not. But he separated rational knowledge from reasonable guiding principles for philosophical work in general.

3. A second prompt for metaphysicians to “bite the bullet” was the turn in epistemology due to Popper’s insight: The search for ultimate justification of general statements is futile. Instead, focus on conjecture and refutation of hypotheses!

   The insight that ultimate justification is an illusion has been illustrated by the Muenchausen Trilemma, named and elaborated by Hans Albert.

   I agree with the comment of @gs and consider the Muenchhausen Trilemma a theorem in epistemology with the consequence: "Biting the bullet will be inevitable in any metaphysical theory", as understood in the sense of classical metaphysics.

Answer 2

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.”

―Kurt Vonnegut

I count him a meta-metaphysician.

Godel's theorem, the Halting Problem, Munchausen's Trilemma, all point at the insufficiency of first-principles axiomatic reasoning, of reaching for a final vocabulary.

I like this article, which gives a bigger picture of Wittgenstein's perspective on philosophy as therapy: Nāgārjuna, Nietzsche, and Rorty’s Strange Looping Trick. The real job of metaphysics, of our epistemic cosmology, is to situate ourselves towards the world in a way that gives us 'epistemic elbowroom', by finding ways to drop unproductive debates and focus towards the work, the lives, that truly matter to us. Any meaningful cosmology must assemble what we see, what we know, connect small and large, cosmic and personal. The creation of metaphysics is the attempt at such cosmoligies in the domain of logic and meta-thinking.

But the idea to get to a final system, the end of the project of metaphysics, is necessarily a trap, a delusion, a mirage that at best could only motivate us to cross a desert.

That's not what metaphysics is for. It's job is to be good enough, that we can turn our energy to the oldest problem in philosophy, how to live well. We need a cosmology, a context, a way to situate ourselves. And a better one can meaningfully impact our lives. But that's the point: our lives.

In Zen koan practice the aim is to hold a space of unknowing. Not to jump to an answer, or dismiss the hope of an answer, but to bring the quietened open creative mind to dwell with the question. We don't live in an abstract objective world, we each live in our own world, shared intersubjectively. Our own 'Why?' requires an answer not for everyone, but for each of us who ask, as we bring our own lives and pasts and preoccupations, into new synthesis; toward situating ourselves to our own world's, so that the answer to 'Why?' is our own lives.

"The meaning and purpose of dancing, is the dance."

-Alan Watts

" 'Man's maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play.' "

-Nietzsche

I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

"Tell them I've had a wonderful life."

-Wittgenstein

Answer 3

I think you’re simply focusing on the wrong point. It is not that certain whys must run contrary to our intuitions, but rather that a complete explanation is impossible due to infinite regress. And even an infinite chain of explanations can prompt the question of why that chain is true rather than another.

Something must exist for no reason and there’s no way around this.

Answer 4

I know to my satisfaction that certain mathematical forms exisit, immutably and beyond time, such as the numbers, the platonic solids, and complex fractals like the Mandelbrot set that arise from very simple definitions...

But we can also accurately model physical reality with mathematics, we can even describe intelligent minds with fairly simple mathematics.

Mathematics is discovered, not invented. Mathematics and the forms it describes exist outside of time, and don't depend on whether we know about them. They cannot change, but they can describe how things change.

So, if we can describe the changing universe precisely, with mathemtical laws, the universe may be a mathematical object that necessarily and automatically exists. I don't know whether mathematics can fully model the universe, but it can certainly model something interesting that is very similar. It can certainly model something very similar to the most complex part of the universe that we know about, the human mind.

It's not necessary to look for turtles all the way down, or ask "Who created God?" when we realise that even starting from next to nothing, everything else follows.

I'm offering this as a partially formed metaphysical theory that might make sense: anything that can be described exists formally or "in the spirit", eternally, immutably; and we happen to be experiencing and participating in a certain interesting part of that multiverse. This seems to align with some descriptions of God, as an eternal, immutable spirit.

I don't see the need to "bite the bullet" with such a theory. It explains the origin of things, although we need to seek further for purpose and meaning, perhaps.