What brought up this thread was this statement. I didn't include it in the original post as not to bias the post if I could help it.
But right after it says, "Its domain is all realitity," it goes on:
Quote
For instance, the human soul and God, because they have neither colour nor weight, thermic nor electric properties, do not fall within the scope of the physicist's investigation; because they are devoid of quantity, they do not come within the field of inquiry of the mathematician. But, since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation. The material object of metaphysics is, therefore, all being.
This statement "since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation" is what I find uncomfortable as a premise. What it seems to be saying is the metaphysics' domain is reality, therefore anything the mind of man can dream up - such as the human soul - can be defined by the metaphysicist as being, and therefore the very ability of the metaphysicist to think of this concept grants it the status of a being, and thus a reality. Ergo, the soul is a reality.
To me this seems a lot like proving a silver knife is made out of wood by renaming the thought of silver a "knotty pine" experience.
I am not convinced. It seems more like a game of words - I can hear the objections now, "that depends on what you mean by being, or, how do you define reality". That's what I mean by word games. And most likely what I have trouble accepting are some of the premises.
However, I claim no expertise or even much knowledge in this area. I am aware that great thinkers such as Aristotle and Kant were pratisioners and these were not small minds. I only wonder if they used their minds in a worthwhile cause.
Quote
Metaphysics tends to produce a lot of babbling
Wasn't there an Ancient Tower of Babbling?