Megan Lacombe

Mr. Wohl
Philosophy
May 19, 2015
Metaphysics
Ultimately metaphysics asks if there is anything which is nonphysical and ultimate. This
nonphysical substance can either reside within ourselves or the world outside of us. However, we
must reject the possibility of even thinking about a metaphysical substance outside of ourselves
because we cannot directly observe anything outside of the realm of our perception. Metaphysics
is important as it allows us to find out if morality and causality are actually real and constant. By
answering questions of metaphysics we can find answers to deep moral problems. The
philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant provide two seemingly similar arguments which
have two drastically different implications.
Hume is staunchly against the possibility of any metaphysical substance. He argues that
the only thing which are real are our experiences. For Hume, nothing can transcend the realm of
our perceptions and any piece of writing or theory which tries to allow for a metaphysical
substance contain only sophistry and illusion because it is impossible to step outside of our
perceptions and observe the world as it truly is. Hume argues that there cannot be knowledge
without experience. This fact seems incontestable. I do not know how to play tennis before I am
taught, I cannot know anything without an experience to support my belief. I can think or
theorize but that is not real knowledge. Because of this, all meaningful knowledge must be a
posteriori For Hume there are only two categories of substance: pure perception, the awareness

that we are having experience and the experience itself independent of any organizing factor, and
categories of experiences, the labels we have for objects and the predicate descriptors which we
construct and place themselves. Pure perceptions are the only thing which are real. The
categories and knowledge which we gain from our perceptions are simply constructs of our
minds and are a posteriori. Hume argues that we organize our experiences though simple chance
and that there is nothing really real or ultimate which is always constant and a priori. If we
follow Humes logic, the possibility of ultimate morality and causality disappear and the world
becomes a place of disorder. I agree with Hume that all knowledge comes from experience but I
cant agree completely with Hume because I cannot live as if his philosophy is true. All my
intuitions, which may prove to be illusions, indicate that there has to be something which is
unconditional and ultimate in order for the world to be livable and life to be worth while. If you
are playing a game you want there to be rules, otherwise there is nothing sacred and nothing
worthwhile. It is the same with life. There must be something ultimate in order for life to
continue as it is.
Kant attempts to recreate the possibility of a metaphysical substance, but not an external
one. Kant concedes that it is futile to try and philosophize about metaphysical substances outside
of our perception. He also agrees the knowledge begins with experience but this means that we
must have a priori knowledge of how to organize our perceptions into categories in the first
place. He makes room for the possibility of a metaphysical substance which exists inside of
ourselves. Kants argument is very similar to Humes in that he begins with two types of
knowledge: synthetic knowledge, the a posteriori knowledge which we gain from experience,
and analytical knowledge, knowledge which is factual and a priori in nature. Yet Kant argues that

Hume is missing a vital piece to the process of how perceptions are organized and become
knowledge. Kant argues that within our brains there must be the ability to organize sensory data
and experience in order for us to organize the data in the first place. Data does not magically
become wisdom or knowledge simply by chance. We must possess abilities which are not
physical in nature that are requirements for knowledge to be possible. These abilities are the
abilities to organize experience temporally, spatially, and causally. These abilities do not come
from experience, but they are a priori and allow for experience. These abilities which our minds
posses constitute the preconditions for all possible experience. Although having these a priori
abilities does not give us any knowledge about what is ultimately real, they give us a type of
subjective objectivity. Because everyone organizes experience with a priori processes, human
experience must be bound by objective conditions that allow for knowledge. I agree with many
of the things Kant says but I have no analytical argument to support him. There is no logical
reason I can think of for why these processes we are capable of should be metaphysical or
ultimate yet they appear to be so.
In order for my view of the world to maintain I have to resort to Kants argument. It
seems to me that there must be something which is not subjective in order for the world and life
to be worthwhile things. Even if the only things humans can know are through subjective
objectivity it still allows for the world to be a livable place. For me, it seems that there must be
something ultimate and a priori but Im not sure where to find it. Kants argument does not
fulfill me completely, but it is a good start.