Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics

by Tuomas E. Tahko (editor)

Aristotelian (or neo-Aristotelian) metaphysics is currently undergoing something of a renaissance. This volume brings together fourteen new essays from leading philosophers who are sympathetic to this conception of metaphysics, which takes its cue from the idea that metaphysics is the first philosophy. The primary input from Aristotle is methodological, but many themes familiar from his metaphysics will be discussed, including ontological categories, the role and interpretation of the existential quantifier, essence, substance, natural kinds, powers, potential, and the development of life. The volume mounts a strong challenge to the type of ontological deflationism which has recently gained a strong foothold in analytic metaphysics. It will be a useful resource for scholars and advanced students who are interested in the foundations and development of philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Metaphysics

277 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 6, 2011

About the author

Tuomas Tahko is Professor of Metaphysics of Science at the University of Bristol. He has worked in Bristol since 2018. Before that, he worked at the University of Helsinki for seven years.

Tahko has also been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Sydney, University of Toronto, University of Reading, New York University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the eidos Centre in Metaphysics of the University of Geneva. He earned an MA in philosophy from Helsinki in 2005 and a PhD in philosophy from Durham in 2008 (under E.J. Lowe's supervision), where he remained as a Visiting Research Fellow for two years, before coming back to Finland,

Tahko's work is mostly in analytic metaphysics and his primary research interests concern the metaphysics and epistemology of modality, methodology of metaphysics, essence, natural kinds, laws of nature, and a priori knowledge. Additional research interests include epistemology, philosophical logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and history of philosophy (Aristotle).

For further information, see his website: www.ttahko.net

Reviews

[Jonathan Platter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book for the most part. Like any collection of essays, for any given reader only a sub-set of the contributions will most likely be relevant. This was the case for me. I am interested in metaphysics, especially deriving from a Thomistic or Aristotelian tradition, and yet the majority of my instructors have been "analytic"-prone philosophers. As Tahko explains in the introduction to this volume, Aristotelian metaphysics is undergoing a "revival" in analytic philosophy, which implies -- correctly, I believe -- that there was a time in analytic philosophy when Aristotelian metaphysics had few representatives. This collection is an attempt to pay tribute to philosophers in the last few decades who have argued for metaphysics as construed by Aristotle and his epigones, consequently seeing metaphysics as a priori and not strictly secondary to natural science. While all the contributors seem to take the results of science seriously for metaphysical reflection, none assume that philosophy's only role is that of Quine's "naturalized" philosophy (whatever their other views about naturalism, they reject naturalized philosophy understood as the second order reflection on the deliverances of natural science alone).

On the one hand the Quinean view claims that ontology, for instance, is a task that follows scientific theory, taking the basic, irreducible propositions of scientific theory and determining which terms in the theory must be quantified over for the theory to be taken as true; those and only those entity's belong in one's ontology. On the other hand, the supporters of this Aristotelian revival argue that scientific theorizing already utilizes ontology; hence, ontology can not solely be derivative of science by virtue of the fact that science presumes ontology (tentatively; clearly ontology is revisable in light of empirical findings).

So, metaphysics has both a priori and a posteriori elements. On the whole, these essays revisit the practice of metaphysics as first philosophy (and so as a priori), addressing various topics. Some are very narrow and specific, and consequently may not be relevant to every reader. However, I think the other reviewer judgment is wrong (or at least exiguous) to assess the essays as "underargued, poorly written, speculative, and sometimes just lame." That he believes he can say this of "most of the essays" after admitting he did not even read them all is a travesty.

That aside, the reader might best approach this volume as a reference work, reading sections or chapters as they are relevant to one's research. The book is well organized, collecting essays around common themes. The virtue of multi-contributor volumes is that multiple perspectives on each theme can be present, and this is the case in Tahko's collection. I believe this is a helpful book and should be very useful for those who are interested in metaphysics and ontology, whether from a primarily Aristotelian or analytic perspective.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 2 out of 5]

Metaphysique aristotélicienne contemporaine est un livre collectif édité par Tuomas Tahko qui propose un échantillon de métaphysique aristotélicienne contemporaine, tiré de la philosophie analytique.

J'ai beaucoup apprécié les chapitres 1 et 2, qui définissent le rôle et la place de la métaphysique par rapport aux sciences, et la défense d'une métaphysique proprement aristotélicienne (par Tahko). Pour tous les autres chapitres en revanche, ils sont des contributions à un débat que j'ignore, sans explications de vocabulaire, et la très haute technicité de la philo analytique. J'ai dû donc abandonner la lecture dès le chapitre 3, et réserve mon jugement sur la majeure partie du livre.

Ce livre n'est pas une introduction à la métaphysique contemporaine, mais une défense devant des philosophes académiques. A tenir compte avant la lecture.

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

I only read about half of the book. It was for a reading group. Most of the articles are underargued, poorly written, speculative, and sometimes just lame.