metaphysics is...

[Skepdick]

Aristotle didn't coin the term "metaphysics." Aristotle simply titled that book "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά" "(The book) after the physics." Andronicus, who was compiling Aristotle's work, is the one who named it "Metaphysics" in the mid 16th century.

You are indeed very confused.

Andronicus lived in 1st century BC. You are about 1600 years out. Andronicus was the one who gave the book the title "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά".

He did that because Aristotle didn't even give it a name.

Turns out, that I have a way to test for Philosophical incompetence after all... I just looked it up in the knowledge ontology known as Google.

[Age]

Okay, and to "others" 'metaphysics' traditionally means some 'thing' else, ENTIRELY.

What? No. In philosophy,

By stating and CLAIMING, "No", you ONCE AGAIN write as though you KNOW what thee ACTUAL One and ONLY Truth IS.

However, now that you HAVE used the words 'in philosophy', then you HAVE at least now made 'things' RELATIVE.

metaphysics has always been the three things I specified, with the focus becoming almost solely ontology in the last 150 years or so.

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This is because to SOME 'metaphysics' has ALWAYS BEEN NOTHING MORE than just 'meta'; more comprehensive or transcending 'physics'; the physical, matter.

The VERY REASON WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are NO CLOSER to solving these issues and STILL SO CONFUSED about these things, even after thousands upon thousands of years discussing these issues, is just because of the way 'you' make it ALL way to complex and hard than it REALLY 'needs' to be.

[Terrapin Station]

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This is because to SOME 'metaphysics' has ALWAYS BEEN NOTHING MORE than just 'meta'; more comprehensive or transcending 'physics'; the physical, matter.

Reference to any philosophical metaphysics that's not been the three things I specified?

[Terrapin Station]

What is wrong with you that you have a tendency to keep writing longer replies?

How did you arrive at "there is no need to study x"?

You asked, "So if you knew what philosophy is, why did you have to study it?"

[Age]

What of that IS when you say what some 'thing' MEANS, then this is from YOUR perspective ONLY, and NOT what 'it' ACTUALLY irrefutably MEANS.

No, neither of those. Usually when people give the definition of something, what they'll give is the conventional definition (appropriate to whatever context).

'Conventional' is an EXTREMELY RELATIVE term. But, "appropriate to whatever context" narrows what is RELATIVE to more specific terms.
SEE, when you START using 'things' RELATIVE to other 'things', then 'things' START becoming much MORE truer.

That's not "from their perspective only"--it's the conventional definition in the given context, and it's not what it "irrefutably means," as there is no such thing.

LOL you ONCE AGAIN could NOT help "yourself" and JUMPED straight back into saying 'things' as though they are 'irrefutably true'.

Is it 'irrefutably true' that there is NO such thing?

If yes, then you are doing what I say you are doing.

But if no, then it could IN FACT be 'irrefutably true' that there are SOME 'things' which are 'irrefutably true'.

See, you can NOT have 'things' both ways.

ALSO, if you do NOT define what the 'conventional' word is in RELATION to, EXACTLY, then saying, " it is THE 'conventional definition' ", it could be argued is again just one's OWN view and perspective of 'things'.

For example, when you provide a definition, and then make the CLAIM that, "it is THE 'conventional definition', then you are 'trying to' CLAIM that it is THEE One and ONLY 'conventional definition', as well as 'trying to' CLAIM that 'it' is the BEST or MOST thorough or correct definition.

[Terrapin Station]

Aristotle didn't coin the term "metaphysics." Aristotle simply titled that book "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά" "(The book) after the physics." Andronicus, who was compiling Aristotle's work, is the one who named it "Metaphysics" in the mid 16th century.

You are indeed very confused.

Andronicus lived in 1st century BC. You are about 1600 years out. Andronicus was the one who gave the book the title "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά".

He did that because Aristotle didn't even give it a name.

Turns out, that I have a way to test for Philosophical incompetence after all... I just looked it up in the knowledge ontology known as Google.

Yeah, I screwed that up. Andronicus was where "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά" comes from. The mid-16th century was where it got changed to "metaphysics."

[Skepdick]

You asked, "So if you knew what philosophy is, why did you have to study it?"

I did. You acquired (some) knowledge about philosophy without studying it.

The knowledge you acquired about philosophy (without studying philosophy) made you interested in philosophy.

How and why did you acquire knowledge of "what philosophy is" if you weren't interested in philosophy?

[Terrapin Station]

'Conventional' is an EXTREMELY RELATIVE term.

Relative to conventions, sure. And?

[Terrapin Station]

I did. You acquired knowledge about philosophy

An idea of what it is, at least.

without studying it.

You learn something about it by getting an idea of what it is, but that in no way suggests no need to study it.

How and why did you acquire knowledge of "what philosophy is" if you weren't interested in philosophy?

You seem to be thinking that somewhere I said, "You can't become interested in something that you didn't previously know about."

[Terrapin Station]

LOL you ONCE AGAIN could NOT help "yourself" and JUMPED straight back into saying 'things' as though they are 'irrefutably true'.

Is it 'irrefutably true' that there is NO such thing?

If yes, then you are doing what I say you are doing.

Re this, "There are no irrefutably true definitions" (and we could simply change that to "There are no true definitions") isn't a definition.

[Age]

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This is because to SOME 'metaphysics' has ALWAYS BEEN NOTHING MORE than just 'meta'; more comprehensive or transcending 'physics'; the physical, matter.

Reference to any philosophical metaphysics that's not been the three things I specified?

So, now you CHANGE the terms and introduce the "philosophical" word to the 'metaphysics' word.

Also, I do NOT know what you are doing here. Are you saying/stating some 'thing' or are you asking some 'thing'?

If it is the latter, then what EXACTLY are you asking?

[Skepdick]

An idea of what it is, at least.

Great. So what was your idea about what philosophy is and how did you acquire it?

You learn something about it by getting an idea of what it is, but that in no way suggests no need to study it.

It sure indicates that there is more than one way to learn about it!

You seem to be thinking that somewhere I said, "You can't become interested in something that you didn't previously know about."

You certainly implied it. In your question. If you knew that it's possible and you knew how it's possible then why would you ask...

How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

[Age]

You asked, "So if you knew what philosophy is, why did you have to study it?"

I did. You acquired (some) knowledge about philosophy without studying it.

Which is about one of the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST things an adult human being could do.

The knowledge you acquired about philosophy (without studying philosophy) made you interested in philosophy.

How and why did you acquire knowledge of "what philosophy is" if you weren't interested in philosophy?

When 'you' say the word "philosophy" here do you even KNOW what you are referring to EXACTLY?

[Terrapin Station]

So, now you CHANGE the terms and introduce the "philosophical" word to the 'metaphysics' word.

Um, you just quoted me saying, "What? No. In philosophy, metaphysics has always been the three things I specified, with the focus becoming almost solely ontology in the last 150 years or so. "

You responded to that with, "This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE."

I didn't change anything. If it's "absolutely false," that means that in philosophy (that's what I wrote and you quoted), metaphysics hasn't always been those three things. So give a reference to some philosophical work where that's not what metaphysics is.

[Age]

'Conventional' is an EXTREMELY RELATIVE term.

Relative to conventions, sure. And?

Well ANY one could just as EASILY say that YOUR definitions are NOT the 'conventional definitions' and that the definitions that they give ARE the 'conventional definitions'. Which is what you are doing/implying.