Practical Considerations In Metaphysics

There are questions that never run out of customers. Is mind produced by the brain, or merely hosted by it? Is everything conscious, nothing conscious, or only the parts that flatter us? Is death an ending, a doorway, or a clerical error? Is there a personal God, an impersonal absolute, many gods, or none?

These questions persist. Answering them has a long history. Quid, metaphysica, tuis natalibus inveniet quisquam sublimius?

And yet no answer has ever won over a majority of humanity. That turns out to be your advantage.

If you want to become an eminent metaphysician, start by choosing one decisive answer to these questions. Convincing yourself is optional. Convincing others is the job.

Step 1: Sound like you know.

Use technical language whenever plain language would do. Prefer terms that resist visualization. Coin neologisms if necessary. If a reader says "I’m not sure what that means", you can reply: good. Depth does not yield itself to immediate perception.

Step 2: Recruit emotion.

Fear works. So does comfort. Offer safety from death, rescue from meaninglessness, elevation above the ordinary. Make your view feel like a home, not a hypothesis.

Step 3: Moralize disagreement.

When disagreement arises, address the person rather than the position. Differences of opinion are rarely neutral; they usually reflect deeper dispositions.

Frame objections in terms of immaturity, fear, moral compromise, or unexamined motivation. This allows the discussion to move beyond narrow questions of correctness and toward more fundamental assessments, where you retain greater flexibility.

Resistance is often a sign that the relevant considerations have not been fully taken on board.

Step 4: Build a tribe.

Shared identity simplifies evaluation. Once people can say "this is who we are", disagreement no longer registers as a difference of opinion. It becomes a failure of alignment.

At that point, your doctrine no longer requires continuous defense. It benefits from loyalty, which is both more stable and less demanding than agreement.

Step 5: Immunize the doctrine.

Redefine your key terms until criticism cannot get a reliable grip. When asked what would count against your view, explain that the question itself presupposes a more limited framework.

Persistent critics should be treated generously. Acknowledge their curiosity, affirm their seriousness, and redirect the discussion. This preserves both the doctrine and the appearance of openness. Resistance is often a sign that the relevant considerations cannot be fully taken on board.

Step 6: Maintain coherence. But not too much.

That is important, because other metaphysicians will try to find internal contradictions.

That is not an issue though. That is a good thing. Don't make it too coherent.

Nobody will talk about you.

Step 7: Fight other metaphysicians.

Public disagreement is not a liability. It is an asset.

Competing doctrines keep attention focused on the central question of which truth is correct, rather than on the more dangerous question of whether truth can be owned at all.

Disputes create visibility. They signal importance. They reassure audiences that something decisive is at stake. A quiet metaphysics is a failing metaphysics.

Argue loudly about substance. Argue endlessly about conclusions. Accuse rival positions of error, blindness, or corruption. This sharpens boundaries and strengthens loyalty.

One rule must not be broken. Never contest the premise that truth is something one can have. As long as this remains untouched, even total disagreement works in your favor.

In this way, opposition performs a stabilizing function. Every rival metaphysician becomes proof that truth matters, that certainty is possible, and that the only remaining task is to choose sides.

Step 8: Never lose truth.

Truth must settle matters. The moment it no longer does, it ceases to function.

You do not seek it. You have it. This gives you the authority to disqualify all other views in advance. If truth is singular, and you possess it, then disagreement can only mean error. Or blindness. Or bad faith.

Guard this carefully. Once truth loses its authority, your advantage is gone.

Finally, discredit views that treat the absence of truth as a tolerable condition. Especially those that keep options open and seek ways of acting across uncertainty. These people are dangerous. They undermine conviction by refusing to grant anyone a monopoly on truth. They cannot be converted. They can only be reasoned with.