What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy
An Introduction to Metaphysics
This book is an accessible introduction to the central themes of contemporary metaphysics. It carefully considers accounts of causation, freedom and determinism, laws of nature, personal identity, mental states, time, material objects, and properties, while inviting students to reflect on metaphysical problems. The philosophical questions discussed include: What makes it the case that one event causes another event? What are material objects? Given that material objects exist, do such things as properties exist? What makes it the case that a person may exist at two different times? An Introduction to Metaphysics makes these tough questions tractable by presenting the features and flaws of current attempts to answer them. Intended primarily for students taking a first class in metaphysics, this lucid and well-written text would also provide an excellent introduction for anyone interested in knowing more about this important area of philosophy.
280 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
19 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 30, 2020
Metaphysics, the study of being. Don’t panic! It is not what common-sense believes and has taught us. It’s an interesting subject which doesn’t need any special talent except a background on logic. Moreover, this book was a very interesting one, it explains the most fundamental subjects in metaphysics (causation, determinism, rules of nature, mental state, identity, physical objects and properties) by using formal logic, if you know anything of logic this will be the best choice otherwise choose another book!!
August 17, 2016
الكتاب يمثل مقدمة (معاصرة) لبعض المشاكل الرئيسية (و ألتي ينصب عليها في الوقت الحالي تركيز أكثر من غيرها) في مجال الميتافيزيقا.
شخصياً , أعتبر الكتاب ممتاز للأسباب التالية :
1- أسلوب الكتاب أكاديمي , منسق , و يشير في كل اقتباس أو نظرية الى المؤلف أو الى المصادر الاخرى , بالاضافة الى وجود Bibliography و Index في خاتمة الكتاب.
2- النص أنسيابي , سهل جداً , مفهوم جداً , و لا يحوي كلمات غريبة أو عبارات عسيرة على الفهم.
3- يطرح اهم و أشهر النظريات الحديثة المتداولة في كل مشكلة من المشاكل الفلسفية المتناولة و يقوم بطرح النظريات المضادة ثم يحاول أن يبين أشهر الردود و الأعتراضات الموجهة لكل النظريات و يترك الحكم النهائي للقارئ بعد أن قام بأثارة فضوله.
4- الكتاب متوسط الحجم , يمكن قراءة فصوله كل على حدة و لا يتطلب أي معلومات أو معرفة مسبقة في ميدان الفلسفة , و لكن معرفة بعض الاساسيات و المصطلحات في المنطق قد يسهل فهم بعض المحتويات بشكل أكبر.
ربما مشاكلي الوحيدة - و ان كانت بسيطة جداً - مع هذا الكتاب هي :
1- بعض الفصول المهمة لم تنل حقها الكافي في الشرح و التوضيح , و قد تولد انطباعاً بانها مقتطعة أو غير كاملة بسبب كثرة التبسيط فيها , لذا من الافضل دراستها على حدة (خاصة فصل الـcausality و الـproperties)
2- في الفصل المتعلق بمكشلة الـMind-Body لم يتم عرض أي حل بديل للمذاهب المادية المطروحة و مشاكلها و ربما كان صرف النظر عن نظرية الـDualistic Interactionism سريعاً الى حد ما.
3- الفصل الأخير (Properties) قد يكون من الممكن شرحه بطريقة أفضل و أوضح.
شخصياً , أعتبر الكتاب ممتاز للأسباب التالية :
1- أسلوب الكتاب أكاديمي , منسق , و يشير في كل اقتباس أو نظرية الى المؤلف أو الى المصادر الاخرى , بالاضافة الى وجود Bibliography و Index في خاتمة الكتاب.
2- النص أنسيابي , سهل جداً , مفهوم جداً , و لا يحوي كلمات غريبة أو عبارات عسيرة على الفهم.
3- يطرح اهم و أشهر النظريات الحديثة المتداولة في كل مشكلة من المشاكل الفلسفية المتناولة و يقوم بطرح النظريات المضادة ثم يحاول أن يبين أشهر الردود و الأعتراضات الموجهة لكل النظريات و يترك الحكم النهائي للقارئ بعد أن قام بأثارة فضوله.
4- الكتاب متوسط الحجم , يمكن قراءة فصوله كل على حدة و لا يتطلب أي معلومات أو معرفة مسبقة في ميدان الفلسفة , و لكن معرفة بعض الاساسيات و المصطلحات في المنطق قد يسهل فهم بعض المحتويات بشكل أكبر.
ربما مشاكلي الوحيدة - و ان كانت بسيطة جداً - مع هذا الكتاب هي :
1- بعض الفصول المهمة لم تنل حقها الكافي في الشرح و التوضيح , و قد تولد انطباعاً بانها مقتطعة أو غير كاملة بسبب كثرة التبسيط فيها , لذا من الافضل دراستها على حدة (خاصة فصل الـcausality و الـproperties)
2- في الفصل المتعلق بمكشلة الـMind-Body لم يتم عرض أي حل بديل للمذاهب المادية المطروحة و مشاكلها و ربما كان صرف النظر عن نظرية الـDualistic Interactionism سريعاً الى حد ما.
3- الفصل الأخير (Properties) قد يكون من الممكن شرحه بطريقة أفضل و أوضح.
January 2, 2020
A clearly written and fairly broad overview to various areas within metaphysics.
January 5, 2026
Rigourous as an introduction I suppose in the sense that it is a wise overview and presents many different competing viewpoints. But that is also its downside and in addition it was pretty hard to follow. Not in the least engaging. Anyways here is a summary and main drawouts:
Metaphysics begins from the fact that things could have been otherwise. Some truths are necessary and could not have been false (i.e logic), while others are contingent and could have been different (i.e laws of nature). This distinction is modal, not epistemic. Possible worlds are used as a framework: something is possible if true in some possible world, necessary if true in all, and contingent if true in some but not all. Possible worlds are not parallel universes but ways reality could have been.
Causation is best understood in terms of counterfactual dependence: a cause makes a difference to whether an effect occurs. Event A causes event B iff, had A not occurred, B would not have occurred (holding relevant background fixed). This captures much of causal reasoning, though it faces problems such as preemption, overdetermination, and the worry that counterfactuals presuppose causation. OBS! Causation is not nescessary, things could be random.
Free will is usually understood compatibilistically. Even if determinism is true, agents can act freely and be morally responsible when their actions flow from their own reasons and values without coercion. The debate shifts from metaphysical openness to the quality of control.
Laws of nature are commonly viewed in a Humean way: they do not govern reality but summarize it. Laws are the axioms of the simplest and strongest true system describing all particular facts. This view fits well with science but struggles to explain why laws feel necessary or governing and even accidental. OBS! Laws are not metaphysically fundamental governing entities.
Personal identity over time is grounded in psychological continuity rather than a further metaphysical self. What matters are memory, character, and other mental connections. There may be no deep further fact beyond these continuities. This view implies that identity can break down in unusual cases and claims identity may be indeterminate or unimportant.
Mental states are real but not separate from the physical world. Everything is physical, yet mental states are higher-level properties realized by physical systems. There is no separate mental realm, though there remains a gap between physical description and conscious experience.
Time is best understood as a static structure in which all times equally exist. There is no objective present or metaphysical flow of time. The present feels special because it is the point of experience and action, not because it uniquely exists. Time = the ordered structure in which events are located
Dominant idea: B-theory + eternalism. Temporal relations (earlier/later) are instead fundamental.
Material entities are physically constituted (particles, fields, or physical structures), occupants of spacetime governed by physical laws, whereas mental entities are states or properties characterized by consciousness, intentionality, or qualitative character, typically realized by—but not identical to—material states.
Properties are real features of the world but not Platonic abstract entities. They exist in and depend on their instances. Science discovers genuine properties, and not every predicate corresponds to a property. There really is a difference between red things and non-red things. Science genuinely discovers properties (mass, charge, spin, etc.)
Metaphysics begins from the fact that things could have been otherwise. Some truths are necessary and could not have been false (i.e logic), while others are contingent and could have been different (i.e laws of nature). This distinction is modal, not epistemic. Possible worlds are used as a framework: something is possible if true in some possible world, necessary if true in all, and contingent if true in some but not all. Possible worlds are not parallel universes but ways reality could have been.
Causation is best understood in terms of counterfactual dependence: a cause makes a difference to whether an effect occurs. Event A causes event B iff, had A not occurred, B would not have occurred (holding relevant background fixed). This captures much of causal reasoning, though it faces problems such as preemption, overdetermination, and the worry that counterfactuals presuppose causation. OBS! Causation is not nescessary, things could be random.
Free will is usually understood compatibilistically. Even if determinism is true, agents can act freely and be morally responsible when their actions flow from their own reasons and values without coercion. The debate shifts from metaphysical openness to the quality of control.
Laws of nature are commonly viewed in a Humean way: they do not govern reality but summarize it. Laws are the axioms of the simplest and strongest true system describing all particular facts. This view fits well with science but struggles to explain why laws feel necessary or governing and even accidental. OBS! Laws are not metaphysically fundamental governing entities.
Personal identity over time is grounded in psychological continuity rather than a further metaphysical self. What matters are memory, character, and other mental connections. There may be no deep further fact beyond these continuities. This view implies that identity can break down in unusual cases and claims identity may be indeterminate or unimportant.
Mental states are real but not separate from the physical world. Everything is physical, yet mental states are higher-level properties realized by physical systems. There is no separate mental realm, though there remains a gap between physical description and conscious experience.
Time is best understood as a static structure in which all times equally exist. There is no objective present or metaphysical flow of time. The present feels special because it is the point of experience and action, not because it uniquely exists. Time = the ordered structure in which events are located
Dominant idea: B-theory + eternalism. Temporal relations (earlier/later) are instead fundamental.
Material entities are physically constituted (particles, fields, or physical structures), occupants of spacetime governed by physical laws, whereas mental entities are states or properties characterized by consciousness, intentionality, or qualitative character, typically realized by—but not identical to—material states.
Properties are real features of the world but not Platonic abstract entities. They exist in and depend on their instances. Science discovers genuine properties, and not every predicate corresponds to a property. There really is a difference between red things and non-red things. Science genuinely discovers properties (mass, charge, spin, etc.)
December 15, 2023
إستمتعت بالكتاب ده جدًّا بنفس درجة استمتاعي بكتاب Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
الكتابين تقريبا عرضوا نفس النقاط بس بطرق مختلفة وبترتيب مختلف وتحت مسمّيات مختلفة بشكل بسيط أوي، ده غير إن الكتاب ده إختار يدافع أكتر عن بعض المواقف.
الكتاب ده مميّز إنه أسهل وأصغر ومش فنّي وتفصيلي زي التاني وبالتالي أرشّح إن الناس تبتدي به الأول.
طبعًا سعيد تاني إني اكون أول تعليق مصري على الكتاب ده.
الكتابين تقريبا عرضوا نفس النقاط بس بطرق مختلفة وبترتيب مختلف وتحت مسمّيات مختلفة بشكل بسيط أوي، ده غير إن الكتاب ده إختار يدافع أكتر عن بعض المواقف.
الكتاب ده مميّز إنه أسهل وأصغر ومش فنّي وتفصيلي زي التاني وبالتالي أرشّح إن الناس تبتدي به الأول.
طبعًا سعيد تاني إني اكون أول تعليق مصري على الكتاب ده.
May 30, 2021
this was a really, really nice read. good introduction ti a very technical and misunderstood branch of philosophy that is so prominent in our everyday lives even though we may not realise it at first. a bit hard to follow at times, but that might just be my imperfect english.
March 2, 2019
recommended for anyone who does not have any background in metaphysics. Simple and short explanation with a clear, short examples.
May 6, 2013
This was a textbook for an upper division, undergrad epistemology/metaphysics course I completed. It provides an easy-to-follow framework for metaphysical topics and has a solid bibliography! Definitely worth getting if you're interested in pursuing metaphysical issues and need to put your feelers out to see where you stand on questions of personal identity, the nature of time, mental states, etc...
June 10, 2014
This is probably a very good introduction to the analytical approach to metaphysics, clearly structured and argumented and perfectly suited to the unexperienced reader.
However, as someone who's more acquainted with continental philosophy, I found a good share of the presented material quite far from my interests, in terms of content and approach. I don't think this is due to shortcomings of the book, but to a matter of personal taste.
However, as someone who's more acquainted with continental philosophy, I found a good share of the presented material quite far from my interests, in terms of content and approach. I don't think this is due to shortcomings of the book, but to a matter of personal taste.
April 29, 2013
A clearly written and accessible textbook, covering all the relevant metaphysical concepts, their major points and criticisms. Nice examples and somewhat fun. Also serves as a reference book and for self-study.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews