What actually is Metaphysics?

This term gets used quite a bit in astrological circles, but it's rarely, if ever, defined. I realized recently, that I too have been guilty of using it in my writings, without ever really explaining what I mean by it. But my usage of the term is quite different from popular usage. So I should probably explain what I mean by it. This is going to be less technical and more philosophical, than my usual articles. But it's important to tackle this subject, because we need to bring metaphysics back to earth, where it belongs.

In order to be impartial, I asked ChatGPT to give me a definition of how the term "metaphysics" is used in modern New Age spiritual circles. Here's what it wrote:

"the study of the unseen, spiritual, or energetic forces behind physical reality, focusing on consciousness, universal laws, and the connection between mind, body, and spirit."

This sounds about right. But there's a big difference between how this term was originally intended and how it's been popularized today. No offense to ChatGPT, but let's compare this to a less prompted definition from the Oxford Language Dictionary. Metaphysics is:

"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."

This is a bit closer to where I want to go....Now, if we go back to the mid 16th Century, we get this definition:

"representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics’, referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.

The idea, inherent in the Latin term, that what is metaphysical means what is 'beyond the physical', is at the root of today's more popular belief that it means 'that which is unseen or spiritual'. But it's a fallacy to think of metaphysics as the study of 'that which is beyond the physical'. As the16th century entry indicates, this term arose to describe the sequence of Aristotelian thought, encapsulated in his first work Physics, and then in his later ideas, in Metaphysics. It did not arise to describe the extra-physical subject matter of what Aristotle was ultimately studying. This interpretation was extrapolated later. The extra-physical nature described by the title refers to his process of inquiry, not to the subject matter of what is inquired about. This is because the evolution of Aristotle's ideas required a degree of greater abstraction in order to solve the problems he encountered in Physics.

But what was Aristotle talking about in his Metaphysics that was so abstract? Let's ask one of the most renown Aristotelian scholars specializing in Metaphsyics:

"Everything that is something---as Socrates is a man, pale a color, in the garden a location, tend pounds a quantity, or two o'clock a time --- is a being. And what makes something a being, according to Aristotle, is its relationship to substance. Hence the account of substance is the centerpiece of his metaphysics, and of his science of being qua being." [C.D.C. Reeve, Substancial Knowledge]

The object of Aristotle's studies, in both Physics, but more deeply so, in Metaphysics, was substance, the very fabric of what we see and experience in the world -- not beyond it! In other words, Metaphysics is about "everything that is something", which is pretty much everything! But if so, what's different about his later work that transcends the physical?

What Aristotle was trying to do in Metaphysics was to establish a process of inquiry which investigates 'being as being'. While in his earlier works he focused on the particulars of reality, here, he's inquiring into the broader structure of reality, which he thinks is highly organized, and into which our own mind plays a vital role. (Yes, way before quantum physics reached this same conclusion!) What he does is to use first principles thinking to abstract from the particulars of existence into the more universal principles of all substance. In the same way that mathematics studies the physical world, but not as physical, he believed there are other abstract ways of thinking about the world. This level of philosophical abstracting about reality ultimately leads to a loss of separation between the observer and the observed, since both are operating under the same fundamental first principles of being (ousia).

It's the structure and process of being that should concern us in astrology because astrology is the study of change, of things coming into being and going out of being in our lives. (After all, the birth chart is itself a record of something coming into being!) Change is also a fundamental topic whose nature is taken up extensively in Physics. But in Metaphysics, Aristotle explores how things change while remaining the same in essence, examining the principles of potentiality and actuality in the context of change. It's this link between potentiality and actuality that we are all blindly attempting to decode in the charts, not realizing that predicting change, depends upon our understanding of this very process. I would add that most of what's covered in Metaphysics -- that is, inquiries into "being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space" are all topics that should be of interest to every astrologer worth his salt -- and which have been, in the distant past.

So, what do I mean when I say I'm going to explain an astrological problem in 'metaphysical terms'? I mean that I'm going to systematically examine it through a process that relies on first principles, while also clarifying, challenging, and analyzing those very principles. The best way to solve a complex astrological problem is to break it down into its most fundamental, undeniable truths and then reason up from there to find better solutions. Usually this starts with a self-evident definition and proceeds to build to a deeper understanding. What I definitely don't mean, is that I'm going to give you unprovable theories and spiritual speculations about how the cosmos is supposed to work; or worse yet, rely solely on ancient authority, without ever examining its validity. In this way, I would define metaphysics as the systematic investigation into the fundamental nature of reality, through reasoning from first principles.

Metaphysics in Occult Knowledge?

Another aspect of metaphysics that is less discussed today, is its blurred overlap in history with the occult. Occult knowledge isn't necessarily dark or sinister. Any secret knowledge can be used for nefarious purposes. "Occult" simply means hidden or unseen. Occultists of the past have often been concerned with the inner workings of nature, the cosmos, and the self, with the primary aim of accessing truths that may lie beyond the reach of empirical science or mainstream religion. So in that respect, they overlap with metaphysicians. But it's been their practical attempts to manipulate or access these hidden forces that have historically driven them into hiding by either religion or modern science. However, their process of inquiry was often quite metaphysical because Aristotelian thinking had been a prominent mode of inquiry in religious and academic institutions before the Scientific Revolution. In fact, during the Platonic revival of the Renaissance, thinkers like Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola combined Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics with Kabbalah, magic, and astrology. Later, the Theosophical and occult revival movements of the 19th century (e.g., Madam Blavatsky) used metaphysical thought to justify esoteric teachings. So, in the Western esoteric tradition, metaphysics has often provided the theoretical structure for occult systems, such as astrology.

All knowledge can either be esoteric (i.e. specialized and hidden) or exoteric (i.e. accessible and public). But first principles thinking is NOT an esoteric process. Anyone can do it, if they have a questioning mind. In fact, young children reason in first principles all the time. Have you ever been on the receiving end of the recursive "why game" with a 4 year old? (If you never have, you should watch this brilliant Louis C.K. bit where he is forced into first principles by his young daughter) You can easily see how the recursive "why?" can lead one to ponder some larger existential questions, rather quickly. But most of us never engage a topic in this manner. Today, we are not encouraged to do so in school. We're encouraged to engage with the first 3 Aristotelian causes: that is, the material, formal and efficient causes, but not the final one, which answers the final "why". So it's this lack of engagement with metaphysical thinking, that has made it appear esoteric and mysterious to the lay person. Whatever is hidden will tend to take on a mysterious appearance -- even when it isn't inherently so. Astrology is considered a form of occult knowledge, simply because the larger part of society (including most astrologers) refuses, or doesn't know how to engage critically with its metaphysics.

But we're all metaphysical occultists, if pressed by our four year-olds! The occultist knows that if he's forced to retrace his steps to the beginning of any problem, this process allows him to better see its path and its purpose (i.e. Aristotle's final cause). The alternative to this type of proactive, inquiry is simply to understand by analogy, that is to say, by repeating the conclusions of better men, who've already taken that path. It's like the difference between being a chef and being a cook. The cook follows the recipe that the chef has created through his understanding of the first principles of cooking. Should a recipe flop, the cook has no understanding of why, or the creative ability to salvage his meal. But the chef does. So cooks are dependent upon chefs, and chefs are far fewer in number. So too, the astrologer of today is either following the recipes of a modern author (often in literal 'astrology cookbooks' that give you prechewed planetary meanings) or he's slavishly adhering to the outmoded interpretative analogies and rote mechanics of some ancient perspective. But he's rarely asking himself the appropriate questions that'll force him to look at our numerous astrological problems from a fresh and deeper perspective.