system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can one deny the existence or importance of metaphysics while remaining intellectually coherent?

Hey all

I sometimes find that there is a dismissive attitude towards metaphysics by some people. They claim either that the term refers to nothing meaningful, or that the field itself is incoherent or of no value.

I am a lay person, so I am not skilled enough to evaluate this. But it seems superficially incoherent to me. Surely one most have one metaphysical framework or axioms from which to form their core beliefs of the world?  Even if one is an ardent empiricist, if one doesn't, how can you even begin? .And further, isn't the rejection of anothers metaphysical framework itself a metaphysical position?

Thanks so much in advance.
gpt
There's a 20th century school of philosophy called ordinary language philosophy and, as the name implies, they considered metaphysical theorizing to be a misuse of ordinary language, and they contended that metaphysical inquiry results in pseudo-problems that should be recognized as such and abandoned once we realize the misuse of language. This tradition has largely fallen out of fashion since Strawson died, but there are still some contemporary adherents, such as John Searle.

So, yes, one can deny the importance of metaphysics while remaining intellectually coherent, as there have been well-respected and influential philosophers, most notably Wittgenstein (from whom the ordinary language school emerged), who have done so.

However, their attitudes aren't dismissive, but rather a result of serious engagement and consideration of metaphysics. And you're correct that the above-mentioned conception of metaphysics is, itself, a metaphysical position. To say that one does not need a metaphysical framework is to be taking a position within the metaphysical discourse, rather than separating oneself from it.