What do you think?
Rate this book
Metaphysics: An Introduction to Contemporary Debates and Their History
This volume introduces readers to a selected number of core issues in metaphysics that have been central in the history of philosophy and remain foundational to contemporary debates, that substances; properties; modality and essence; causality; determinism and free will. Anna Marmodoro and Erasmus Mayr take a neo-Aristotelian approach both in the selection and presentation of the topics. But Marmodoro and Mayr's discussion is not narrowly partisan-it consistently presents opposing sides of the debate and addresses issues from different philosophical traditions, and encourages readers to draw their own conclusions about them.
Metaphysics combines a state-of-the-art presentation of the issues that takes into account the most recent developments in the field, with extensive references to the history of philosophy. The book thus makes topics in contemporary analytical metaphysics easily accessible to readers who have no specific background in contemporary philosophy, but rather in the history of philosophy. At the same time, it will engage readers who do not have any historical background with some key developments within the history of the subject.
Metaphysics combines a state-of-the-art presentation of the issues that takes into account the most recent developments in the field, with extensive references to the history of philosophy. The book thus makes topics in contemporary analytical metaphysics easily accessible to readers who have no specific background in contemporary philosophy, but rather in the history of philosophy. At the same time, it will engage readers who do not have any historical background with some key developments within the history of the subject.
- GenresPhilosophyMetaphysics
232 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 25, 2019
13 people are currently reading
99 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 27, 2022
Masters of Their Limited Art
This book represents more than a mere introduction. Call it a ‘weak’ metaphysics, in the sense that its authors are not strong proponents of its ideas, yet they are proponents nevertheless. Here, they present a metaphysics of their very own, which they do with greater or lesser confidence, depending on the theme.
There is a vital remark which appears on the last two pages of the book:
‘One trait d’union of this book has been our effort to show that the metaphysics of powers and its recent revival provides us an angle from which we can fruitfully re-examine within a unified framework “traditional” questions in a variety of areas in metaphysics.’
A trait d’union, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is ‘a well-thought-out plan’. This is a plan which surrounds the concept of ‘powers’. We therefore have a modern metaphysics, rather than postmodern. Modern metaphysics, like this, are characterized (as Arthur Schopenhauer put it) by ‘the single thought’. Call it an old-fashioned metaphysics—though certainly not out of date.
But first a caution. Oxford Academic bafflingly calls this a book ‘for beginners’. I ran sections 2.7 (‘Relations versus monadic properties’) and 5.5 (‘Free will and the “new dispositionalism”’) through computer analysis. Readability for these two parts together was 16.25. This book probably requires a university degree.
What, then, are ‘powers’? Powers are a certain kind of characteristic (which is, property) of a thing. Take a wine glass, for example. It is hard. It is clear. But it also has the ‘power’ to shatter, or the ‘power’ to resonate. That is, apart from what one sees by examining the glass, it may also undergo certain modifications, or bring about certain effects.
The authors use this concept to explain everything from that which a thing is, to how it causes other things to happen; why we may believe in laws of nature—and even, for that matter, free will. They call it a ‘game changer’. However, the idea is problematic. It seems too much of a convenient fudge. The philosopher Simon Blackburn writes, ‘All claims about powers and their grounds are controversial.’
But, never mind. This book is not about powers alone. It covers (almost) all that one should find in a neo-Aristotelian philosophy: substance, properties and relations, modality and essence, causality, and determinism and free will, all with copious detail provided. And, while reading the book is hard, it is a model of clarity. In fact it is so clear that it seems so much easier to spot the mistakes—not of the authors necessarily, but of the philosophers. One wants that.
I found two big gaps in the book, which would seem to matter:
1. Apart from the question as to what kinds of things there are and what they are like, there is also the question as to how things could be, or must be (which is, possibility and necessity). Such are things which we cover under modality. Yet modality also speaks of how things should be, and should is a word that sums up the whole vast realm of ethics. Where is it? It is absent from the book.
2. The book seems to be in something of a muddle as to how one should separate noumena from phenomena from signs. To put it another way, it tends to mix up reality, mind, and language, without really stopping to clarify the distinctions. In my own metaphysics, I devote a great deal of attention to these differences. I sense that this further causes the authors to omit a vast range of abstracta from their book: things like ‘happiness’, ‘culture’, or ‘God’.
Here and there, there are some fascinating glimmers of possible new directions in metaphysics—mentioned tentatively, without working them through. The authors note that there is ‘no genuinely singularist causation’. They note that, while we cannot break the laws of nature, we might ‘render false the statement of the laws’. Such ideas could revolutionize the way that we think. Perhaps they belong to metaphysics of the future.
I have joked that one should call the book ‘Metaphysics: An Introduction to Contemporary Straits and their Mystery’. It seems much like a haberdashery, full of interesting bits which relate, and yet not quite. Again, this is the state of metaphysics today, and no great fault of the authors. I feel that the book misses too many things to give it 5/5, but it really is too good to give it 3/5. I recommend it—though not to the beginner.
This book represents more than a mere introduction. Call it a ‘weak’ metaphysics, in the sense that its authors are not strong proponents of its ideas, yet they are proponents nevertheless. Here, they present a metaphysics of their very own, which they do with greater or lesser confidence, depending on the theme.
There is a vital remark which appears on the last two pages of the book:
‘One trait d’union of this book has been our effort to show that the metaphysics of powers and its recent revival provides us an angle from which we can fruitfully re-examine within a unified framework “traditional” questions in a variety of areas in metaphysics.’
A trait d’union, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is ‘a well-thought-out plan’. This is a plan which surrounds the concept of ‘powers’. We therefore have a modern metaphysics, rather than postmodern. Modern metaphysics, like this, are characterized (as Arthur Schopenhauer put it) by ‘the single thought’. Call it an old-fashioned metaphysics—though certainly not out of date.
But first a caution. Oxford Academic bafflingly calls this a book ‘for beginners’. I ran sections 2.7 (‘Relations versus monadic properties’) and 5.5 (‘Free will and the “new dispositionalism”’) through computer analysis. Readability for these two parts together was 16.25. This book probably requires a university degree.
What, then, are ‘powers’? Powers are a certain kind of characteristic (which is, property) of a thing. Take a wine glass, for example. It is hard. It is clear. But it also has the ‘power’ to shatter, or the ‘power’ to resonate. That is, apart from what one sees by examining the glass, it may also undergo certain modifications, or bring about certain effects.
The authors use this concept to explain everything from that which a thing is, to how it causes other things to happen; why we may believe in laws of nature—and even, for that matter, free will. They call it a ‘game changer’. However, the idea is problematic. It seems too much of a convenient fudge. The philosopher Simon Blackburn writes, ‘All claims about powers and their grounds are controversial.’
But, never mind. This book is not about powers alone. It covers (almost) all that one should find in a neo-Aristotelian philosophy: substance, properties and relations, modality and essence, causality, and determinism and free will, all with copious detail provided. And, while reading the book is hard, it is a model of clarity. In fact it is so clear that it seems so much easier to spot the mistakes—not of the authors necessarily, but of the philosophers. One wants that.
I found two big gaps in the book, which would seem to matter:
1. Apart from the question as to what kinds of things there are and what they are like, there is also the question as to how things could be, or must be (which is, possibility and necessity). Such are things which we cover under modality. Yet modality also speaks of how things should be, and should is a word that sums up the whole vast realm of ethics. Where is it? It is absent from the book.
2. The book seems to be in something of a muddle as to how one should separate noumena from phenomena from signs. To put it another way, it tends to mix up reality, mind, and language, without really stopping to clarify the distinctions. In my own metaphysics, I devote a great deal of attention to these differences. I sense that this further causes the authors to omit a vast range of abstracta from their book: things like ‘happiness’, ‘culture’, or ‘God’.
Here and there, there are some fascinating glimmers of possible new directions in metaphysics—mentioned tentatively, without working them through. The authors note that there is ‘no genuinely singularist causation’. They note that, while we cannot break the laws of nature, we might ‘render false the statement of the laws’. Such ideas could revolutionize the way that we think. Perhaps they belong to metaphysics of the future.
I have joked that one should call the book ‘Metaphysics: An Introduction to Contemporary Straits and their Mystery’. It seems much like a haberdashery, full of interesting bits which relate, and yet not quite. Again, this is the state of metaphysics today, and no great fault of the authors. I feel that the book misses too many things to give it 5/5, but it really is too good to give it 3/5. I recommend it—though not to the beginner.
June 23, 2025
Gets extra points for defending the reality of powers, but has its own flaws. For one, it’s surprisingly poorly written and simply bad at explaining introductory concepts in analytic metaphysics. Though, this may reflect my inability to understand them—it’s the worse mixture of dry and ambiguous.
May 24, 2023
A more in-depth introduction to metaphysics
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews