You are saying metaphysics is about the "why" of this.
I agree.
I disagree that there has been a way or method of producing metaphysics that seems to work well. The evidence is that we have so many incompatible systems that all claim to be true.
Imagine the mess science would be if it brought this level of accuracy and epistemology to the table when thinking.
Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle or Derrida, pick Quine or the late Heidegger, and it is hard to conceive that they are even doing the same thing ("philosophy").
What it retains is everything that hasn't gotten pulled out into its own named discipline. Which is something of a jumble, sure.
And generally speaking, the practitioners of these disciplines tend to assert that their findings are true, in fact. Whether they are actually true....well, interest in that tends to drop off quite rapidly.
Welcome to Planet Earth, 2023, please enjoy your stay.
>Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle or Derrida, pick Quine or the late Heidegger, and it is hard to conceive that they are even doing the same thing ("philosophy").
Investigating the mysterious extremes of a system is a lot harder than investigating the known to be (now, after many decades of very hard work and dedication) deterministic middle ground.
At the end of the day, everyone is doing their best, and Mother Nature will award us with the fruits of our collective activities...unfortunately, our (projected) rewards seem to be taking a steeply downward trajectory with this whole climate change thing. Shame there seems to be not much we can (actually) do about it, despite our over-abundance of surely fantastic ideas.
Filter it by the tag "naturalism". Where's semantic web, again?
Why should metaphysics be a dead end? Given the facts of observation, what must be true of reality so that such facts can obtain? Metaphysics is tacit within the facts, and a metaphysical stance is tacit in one's claims. Everyone here would agree (except in some artificial, dishonest, rarefied moment of academic detachment from reality) that something cannot both be and not be the case. We could not possibly reason about reality otherwise. But why should logic take this position? Logic is concerned with correct reasoning, but reasoning is about reality. So the justification for the logical principle of contradiction can only be found in the metaphysical, that is, in the reality (or being) that we are reasoning about. It must be that reality (being) is such that it cannot both be and not be. It is the only way to maintain the faithfulness of reason to the real. Any attempt to undermine this correspondence undermines the very attempt to undermine this correspondence, as you would would no doubt be reasoning to such a conclusion. Thus we have the first methodological principle of first philosophy, that our conclusions cannot undermine the very means by which we reason to those conclusions. We are condemned to reason, so we better do it well as there is no other alternative, other than doing it poorly. This rules out skepticism and relativism off the bat (and incidentally, this is why even academic philosophers generally do not take these positions seriously). And ethics, of course, entails metaphysical propositions like anything else.
That these are difficult subjects often executed poorly does not mean they are bullshit as such.