The Emperor's New Metaphysics

 If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. If you really make them think, they’ll hate you.

Imagine getting a new job as the Chief Technology Officer for a big Silicon Valley startup corporation. In this new role, you are responsible for supervising various technical projects and tracking their schedules. In an effort to get settled, you decide to host a series of meetings with the individual teams. The goal for each team is simple: Tell me exactly what it is you do for this company. What projects are you working on? What kind of tasks are you responsible for? What value do you bring to our business that justifies paying you a salary?

At first, everything seems to go exactly as you would expect. Starting with the software team, you find a highly motivated group of engineers who write all of the code for company algorithms. They proudly present you with a detailed portfolio of every projects they've completed, every new feature they're working on, and all the value it brings to our customers.

Moving along, you next meet with the electrical team. Again, you find yourself impressed by their dedicated professionalism and the quality of their work. They show you the lab they work in, the products they're developing, and the obstacles they're struggling to overcome. It's another talented team of skilled employees all working together to innovate and solve problems.

And so it goes for meeting after meeting. Every group you talk to consists of well-trained professionals who collaborate in a focused effort to drive the company business model. It's all perfectly normal stuff, until you suddenly encounter a strange team known as the meta-engineers. It's a little startling at first, given that you've never heard of such a concept before. But then again, this is a highly innovative startup company. It is therefore only natural to feel some excitement about all amazing things they must be doing. Here's what they have to say: 

Well, to be honest, we're not really sure what we do. You just kind of have to do it for a while before it begins to make any sense. Broadly speaking, however, we explore the fundamental nature of business itself—business qua business, if you will. We seek to understand the underlying principles that govern our key performance indicators, as well as the essence of corporate synergy. We ask questions like, 'What is the true nature of a customer?' or 'Does a photocopy retain the same fundamental essence as the original?'

“Okay,” you say out loud. “But what exactly do you do for the company? What value do you bring? What sort of projects do you take ownership of, and how do you track their progress? What problems are you even solving? What results can you show for all the work you've been doing since you were hired?" 

We do meta-engineering for its own sake! Our work transcends the realm of petty material concerns like sales and profits. But rest assured, the entire company would absolutely fail if not for us. Why, those poor dumb engineers would be totally lost without the work we do. So don’t you dare lay any of us off. If anything, we should all get raises! 

Given such a scenario, what exactly do you think is the sensible business decision? Should you continue paying these guys to do whatever it is they do? Or should you fire them all on the spot and then allocate their resources elsewhere?

That may sound like a far-fetched scenario, but it really is a practical illustration of how metaphysics seems to operate as an academic institution. For centuries, prestigious philosophers have been dedicating their lives to the study of metaphysics, yet none of its greatest practitioners appear to have the slightest clue what it's even about. They take it as a point of pride that metaphysics has no tangible value, and they make no effort to hide their rejection of empirical data as a standard of merit. The questions they ask are often so vague as to be completely meaningless, and many of their greatest problems have already been settled by professionals in other fields. There’s even an ongoing debate within metaphysics itself over whether or not the field is actually worth pursuing in the first place. But then, despite all of these shortcomings, many of those very same authorities will have the audacity to promote metaphysics as (quite literally) the greatest thing ever—as if a study of metaphysics is the noblest of all human activities, and that all other fields of study would completely collapse without it [1,2,3,4,5].

It is difficult to overstate the significance of metaphysics within the broader context of academic philosophy. It is widely regarded as one of the core branches of all philosophy itself, and students are universally required to take multiple courses in the subject before earning their degrees. It's easily one of the most popular areas of specialty, too, with metaphysics typically holding first or second place among modern PhDs being awarded [6,7]. Many experts likewise describe metaphysics as being foundational to all other schools of thought, such that it is commonly referred to by the reverential title of The First Philosophy. 

That being said, it is also important to understand that metaphysics is not exactly well-liked among other academics. I don’t mean in the sense that scientists, engineers, and mathematicians are all gathered around the water cooler making fun of the silly humanities. If anything, the topic never even comes up. Not a single one of my technical textbooks has ever mentioned the word “metaphysics,” and I can think of no collaborations where a metaphysician has ever contributed anything noteworthy to a scientific project

Even mainstream philosophy itself has a weirdly mixed relationship to metaphysics. Despite the public image it tries to convey, there is actually a rich tradition of highly influential figures arguing explicitly against the field. For example, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Rudolf Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer, and Bertrand Russel are just a handful of the many prominent thinkers who expressed very negative opinions about the value of metaphysics. There is even an entire sub-discipline within metaphysics, called meta-metaphysics, devoted specifically to the question of what the heck metaphysics is all about [8,9]. Consequently, a sizeable number of research publications within metaphysics are devoted specifically to the defense of metaphysics as a respectable field of study.

All of this has given rise to a weirdly paradoxical image among the broader public. On the one hand, metaphysics actively promotes itself as a profoundly insightful discipline in which respected academics probe the deepest mysteries of the universe. On the other hand, nobody outside of metaphysics seems to have any real use for it. Many of its own practitioners admit that it has no real value, and it is widely regarded among philosophers themselves as a gigantic waste of time. So if you are anything like me, and you have a deep interest in exploring philosophy, then you’re probably curious about what exactly this whole “metaphysics” thing is all about. Is it really as important as proponents say it is? Or is just a pretentious buzzword designed to mask the incompetence of pseudo-intellectual hacks? 

I'm a professional scientist, engineer, and mathematician with a doctorate of philosophy from an accredited American university. I am the author of more than two dozen peer-reviewed publications, and I have about two decades' worth of experience in both academia and private industry. I also have a passion for sharing my philosophical insights from a qualified perspective of science and engineering. I like philosophy, and I strongly believe that, when done properly, philosophy has the power to sharpen our minds with valuable insights. What I don't like about philosophy is the way in which practitioners habitually abuse the subject by lending credibility to terrible ideas. It’s almost cultish, too, how defensive this community tends to get whenever someone like myself offers hard criticisms of their beloved institutions. So before anyone gets the naïve impression that this just another ignorant rant by some angry, trash-talking STEM-lord, let’s make one thing perfectly clear:

I am not alone in my antagonism against metaphysics. The things I’m about to say have been widely echoed across the academic world and even by influential members within mainstream philosophy itself. Most of my criticisms are not even a matter of debate, either, but admitted openly by PhD-wielding authorities in their own self-authored textbooks. The only thing I’m doing is compiling those criticisms for a modern, popular audience, so that everyone may reasonably decide for themselves if metaphysics is truly worth pursuing. 

Now before we get too carried away in our criticism of metaphysics, it’s important to ask ourselves what exactly that word means. That is to say, when I go to a university and pay thousands of dollars to study metaphysics from a certified metaphysician, what exactly am I learning? What separates a metaphysical question from, say, a regular physics question? Or even a regular philosophical question? What methodology can I expect to utilize in that effort? What standards exist to identify quality metaphysical research and measure progress?

These are important questions to ask because the answers are almost embarrassing to say out loud. In short, there are no official answers. Countless philosophers have stated very matter-of-factly that nobody really knows what metaphysics is, only to then go on discussing metaphysics anyway as if it was no big deal [10,11,12,13,14]. It’s a mind-boggling failure that speaks volumes about the sheer incompetence of the entire discipline. After all, if we honestly don’t know what metaphysics really is, then what makes anyone so confident that anything is truly metaphysics? How does one become a certified authority in the subject matter and thus worthy to speak on its behalf? How do we prevent bad actors from merely claiming to be authorities, only to then pollute the discourse with a bunch of self-serving propaganda? You simply cannot claim that metaphysics is a respectable field of study when absolutely no one can give a straight answer as to what the hell metaphysics is all about. 

To be fair, countless self-proclaimed experts have at least tried to define metaphysics, but not a single answer has ever managed to catch on [10]. Consequently, any answer you get to the question is usually just the unqualified opinion of whoever you happened to ask. Most textbooks tend to avoid the question altogether, opting instead for the time-honored tradition of “you’ll just know when you see it” [15,16]. The reader is then presented with a series of representative essays on a random assortment of topics which the author just so happens to consider canonical. Thus, under this definition, metaphysics is apparently the study of a wide variety of topics, including (but not limited to): identity, free will, time, personhood, causality, and whether or not you’ll die from stepping in a teleporter.

Granted, this is arguably a perfectly valid definition, but it’s hard to shake the impression that this is also completely arbitrary. It’s as if metaphysics is little more than a hodgepodge of assorted topics that philosophers can’t be bothered to organize under other categories [17]. To put it in perspective, it would be like a meta-engineer telling you his professional field of study is defined by the following skillset: 

• Interior Design
  

• Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

• Ornithology

• Culinary Arts, and 

• Bee Keeping 

Sure, there’s nothing logically wrong with this definition per se, but there is also no theme with which to tie it all together. This leads to all sorts of practical concerns, in that anyone can now arbitrarily decide to add or subtract items from that list. To illustrate, suppose another self-proclaimed meta-engineer comes along and says that he doesn’t think Ornithology belongs in the skill set. According to him, it should really include Massage Therapy, Origami, and Bowling! It’s a perfectly valid concern, and it happens all the time in the world of metaphysics. To demonstrate, consider such questions as: 

• Does God exist? 

• What is the nature of consciousness? 

• Is there a meaning to life? 

• Where does human morality come from? 

• What exactly is metaphysics, really?

Are these metaphysical questions or not? Some people might argue yes, others might say no, and no one has any authority with which to settle the debate. Consequently, anyone gets to pick and choose whatever answers they like, which means anything can now qualify as a metaphysical question. And since anything gets to be metaphysics, then nothing is metaphysics. The very distinction itself has no meaning.

Another common definition you may have heard is the idea that metaphysics is the study of being qua being (or, depending on who’s talking, the study of being as being, or perhaps being as such) [18,19]. It’s a wildly popular phrase that permeates the metaphysical literature, but it again suffers from a number of glaring problems. The most obvious, of course, is that the very phrase itself---being qua being---is nothing but a meaningless string of gibberish nonsense. It's like saying that art is the study of "color qua color" or "pictures as such." It might sound all deep and profound to an untrained ear, but it also tells me nothing. It should therefore come as no surprise that philosophers themselves have published countless essays on the supposed meaning of "being qua being," and they still have yet to agree on an official interpretation [20,21,22,23].

Remember that sooner or later we have to pick and choose what subject matter gets to officially qualify as metaphysics. We need to write textbooks, we need to define college curricula, and we would like to publish original research in prestigious journals. So when some joker comes along with a 20-page essay comparing the essential of properties of tables against their accidental properties, how exactly does "being qua being" set the standard?

A third definition that many philosophers like to throw around states that metaphysics is “the branch of philosophy concerned with fundamental questions about the nature of reality” [24,25]. It sounds great in theory, until you suddenly realize that every other field of study presumably does the same thing. Economists study the fundamental nature of scarcity, biologists study the fundamental nature of life, and cosmologists study the fundamental nature of our very universe. All of these fields are presumably concerned with the nature of reality, which means there is nothing to differentiate metaphysics from the alternatives. That’s not even my own argument, either, but a point that was specifically raised by the very authors of the textbook from which I just pulled that definition!

Yet another variation you may have heard is the idea that metaphysics concerns itself with questions “beyond” the scope of regular physics [26,27,28]. That is to say, metaphysics operates as a kind of super physics that explores questions beyond the reach of ordinary physical science. For example, what is the origin of consciousness? How do abstract objects affect the material world? What is the fundamental essence of space and time? Allegedly, such questions are inaccessible to the pitiful methods of empirical science, so only the philosophers get to explore them through the mighty power of reason alone [29,30,31].

This is again highly problematic for all sorts of reasons. For starters, the claim itself is little more than a bare assertion that isn't even remotely accurate. Neurologists are very much concerned with the origin of consciousness, thank you very much. In fact, they're doing a fantastic job at it, too, with profound discoveries being made on a daily basis. Likewise, physicists are absolutely interested in the fundamentals of space and time. Talk to any one of them, and they will be more than happy to share all kinds of amazing insights about quantum wavefunctions, black hole singularities, and hyperbolic four-dimensional spacetime manifolds. In contrast, the metaphysical interest in such topics is downright laughable. Over the last 50 years, not a single metaphysical researcher has published anything original about the nature of time, its interactions with space, or its relationships to velocity and gravity. In fact, the overwhelming majority of all published research on the metaphysics of time was devoted entirely to a petty debate between the so-called A-theory and B-theory. Decades’ worth of effort by prestigious PhD-wielding authorities, and philosophers have nothing to show for it other than a bunch of back-and-forth arguments over whether or not “tensed facts” are real. [32].

I see this sort of thing happen all the time in the metaphysical literature, and it’s weirdly unsettling from a modern scientific perspective. A good analogy would be like watching two alchemists argue over the best way to turn lead into gold. Not only are they both utterly incapable of producing tangible results, but they often get angrily defensive over the very idea. Then there's the technical jargon they use to hold their debates, which usually comes off as hopelessly antiquated. They’ll spend hours babbling about esoteric nonsense like the tria prima, the first matter, and the proper levels of citrinitas in some reaction. Meanwhile the periodic table of elements is conspicuously absent from the conversation, and anyone who even mentions words like radioactivity or atomic theory will be openly scorned for their insolence. Worse still, they have no idea that modern science has actually figured this stuff out pretty darn well, in that scientists have already demonstrated a real transmutation of mercury into gold [33]. They just repeat the same tired arguments with each other for centuries on end, never producing a single atom of actual gold, all while the real science continues on in the background making further discoveries. 

Another huge problem with metaphysics is the way in which practitioners routinely operate through a strictly a-priori methodology. It’s a gigantic red flag that once again speaks volumes about the sheer incompetence (if not outright fraud) of the entire field. It is simply not possible to generate original facts about objective reality through the power of pure thought. Yet when it comes to metaphysics, this is apparently a feature, rather than a bug. We’re literally talking about a scenario in which philosophers claim to produce hard facts about mind-independent reality using naught but the power of their own minds. It’s practically a contradiction in terms, and it demonstrably doesn’t work. Never in the 2000-year history of metaphysics has such a methodology been successful at settling a single debate or revealing a single matter of objective fact.

This is actually one of the most widely vocalized criticisms against metaphysics, in that practitioners honestly don’t seem to grasp the difference between language and reality. It’s a little thing called the analytic/synthetic distinction, and you can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist. When a philosopher sits lazily from the comfort of an armchair and thinks really hard about things, they are not going to magically generate reliable information about the universe. At best, they can only ever analyze the interplay between ideas as expressed within a given set of propositional models. That’s fine, and there’s a perfectly valid place for that stuff in modern philosophy. For metaphysics, however, that's just not good enough, and so countless hack philosophers will still insist that metaphysics is a study of the world beyond language and perception. We're talking about a realm where the rules of inquiry are governed specifically by the empirical methods of science, and metaphysicians have explicitly rejected those methods as a matter of principle. It's a tacit admission that metaphysics is not a reliable source of real-world understanding, but instead operates solely on baseless speculation.

This is profoundly basic doctrine for any serious student of epistemology, and scientists have been happily operating under such rules for hundreds of years. In contrast, most metaphysicians seem either unable or unwilling to wrap their heads around it. They tend to be obnoxiously pompous about it, too, like you’re some of moron for even bringing it up. They routinely dismiss it outright as the ignorant rantings of a dirty "logical positivist," and it is especially common to hear the derisive label of "scientism" when rejecting such concerns.

There's a deep anti-empirical bias that permeates the metaphysical literature, and it's hard to ignore the blatant hypocrisy that it represents. Philosophers of metaphysics often go out of their way to present a strict neutrality in their own textbooks, no matter how crazy the subject matter appears to be [34,35,36]. For example, entire book chapters may be devoted to wholly discredited nonsense like immaterial souls, inter-dimensional abstract realms, and the biological properties of angels. Philosophers will routinely behave as if this is all perfectly sensible stuff, just so that students can "decide for themselves" what they want to believe without any external bias. But then, the moment anyone dares to mention science with its dreaded empiricism, and metaphysicians are suddenly tripping over themselves to explain just how wrong you are [37,38,39].

It is difficult to take metaphysics seriously when so many of its best practitioners are so inexcusably unprofessional. Contrary to popular opinion, the legacy of logical positivism is very much alive and well. The analytic/synthetic distinction is easily one the most widely accepted doctrines in the history of modern philosophy [40], and the principle of verification is practically a cornerstone of modern physics. Science itself is the de facto standard of justification for all synthetic propositions, and people who reject science are almost universally engaged in some manner or fraud. So when metaphysicians try to pretend as if such principles are little more than archaic relics of a bygone age, I can't help but wonder. Does metaphysics even care about the truth? Or is it nothing but a glorified haven for self-indulgent naval gazing?

Finally, we need to explore the very claim itself: the idea that “meta” in metaphysics indicates field of study that extends above and beyond the reach of regular physics. To be perfectly blunt, this claim is categorically false, and it represents a profound ignorance about the origin of metaphysics as a concept [41]. The word traces back to the original writings of Aristotle, which were basically just a bunch of disorganized lecture notes. Ancient scribes then had to copy and re-copy those manuscripts over many centuries, and they happily took it upon themselves to organize content along the way. For example, one of Aristotle’s volumes just so happens to talk at length about the natural world, and so editors simply called it exactly that: The Physics, after the ancient Greek word phusis (φύσις) meaning “nature.” Aristotle then continued to write even more stuff after his Physics, and ancient scribes again called it exactly that: Ta Meta Ta Fysica [τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά], which roughly translates into “the ones after the Physics.” Over time, this title was eventually simplified to just The Metaphysics, and the name stuck. 

So no, the prefix “meta” does not mean beyond the physics, and it never has. It means after the physics. As in, literally, whatever random collection of assorted philosophical crap that Aristotle happened to feel like writing about after he wrote his Physics. Since that just so happens to include a bunch of weird statements about the sciences of First Philosophy and Being as Being, such phrases have historically been associated with the study of metaphysics.

Notice how this perfectly explains the seemingly arbitrary nature of metaphysics as an academic field of study. Aristotle talked at length about all kinds of wacky stuff, like the nature of God, the fundamentals of causality, and just plain being. It was therefore perfectly natural for ancient philosophers simply lump all of these topics under the purview of metaphysics. It's also terribly vague, too, which explains why the field eventually grew to encompass all kinds of extra topics over time. There was never any official distinction between what is, or is not, metaphysics, except for what Aristotle happened to write. As a result, no one could ever complain when some two-bit yahoo stapled his own pet essays under the banner of First Philosophy. 

We can also begin to make sense out of the uncomfortable relationship that modern philosophers seem to have with Aristotle. Pick up major treatise on the subject of metaphysics, and it is perfectly normal to encounter some token lip-service to his awesome brilliance. We especially see this attitude in Scholastic philosophies like Thomism, which are practically dripping with Aristotelian influence. St. Thomas Aquinas absolutely loved Aristotle, and he even referred to the guy through the reverential title of The Philosopher. It’s because of people like Aquinas that the Catholic church embraced Aristotelian philosophy as official doctrine, and medieval scholars were often threatened with death for teaching anything contrary [42,43]. It is therefore not a coincidence that modern Christian apologists also happen to be some of the loudest cheerleaders for metaphysics today [43]. Metaphysics and theology go hand in hand, which is why modern Christian apologists constantly appeal to antiquated metaphysical concepts in their arguments for God's existence.

This is all perfectly fine from a strictly historical perspective, but it’s absolutely horrifying from a philosophical one. Aristotle’s legacy is hardly one of brilliant innovation and discovery, but more like centuries of stifled progress under Catholic oppression. The guy is often revered as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, despite being categorically wrong about damn-near everything he taught. Honest scholars tend to praise him more for his influence rather than this discoveries, because most of his supposed discoveries were hardly significant breakthroughs for the time. Remember, we’re talking about a guy who actually believed that:

• The Earth is the center of the universe and that all celestial bodies orbit our world atop perfect spherical shells.
  

• He believed in the five elements of nature, including Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Aether. 

• He believed that heavy objects fall faster than light objects, and that all moving bodies naturally seek a state of absolute rest. 

• He believed in spontaneous generation, whereby living creatures could just poof out of the ground from non-living materials. 

• He thought that upward motion was superior to downward motion, and that forward motion was superior to reverse. 

• He argued that slavery was totally awesome, and that slaves should be grateful for the opportunity to live as human property. 

• He actually claimed that women have fewer teeth than men, and he used this supposed fact as just one of many justifications for their naturally subservient role!

Call me crazy, but this hardly seems like the kind of person who should be taken seriously over questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

We can even begin to make sense out of the obnoxious writing style that plagues the broader canon of philosophical literature. Aristotle was certainly wrong about a lot of things, but that’s usually only limited to the parts where one can make sense out of what the hell he was even trying to say. Most of the time, he just blathered nonsense. It is not an exaggeration to say that his writing style often feels like the demented fever dreams of a guy struggling to put ideas into words. It’s a terrible practice that should have been ruthlessly outlawed centuries ago, but modern Western philosophers routinely mimic this style.

Please understand that this is not some personal nit-pick from a dull plebeian who just doesn’t get it. There is a very big difference between “I don’t know what you’re saying” versus “the things you are saying have objectively failed to cohere into a meaningful thought." Aristotle’s Metaphysics is absolutely in the latter category, and countless students throughout history have been very vocal in their complaints. There’s even a famous story about the Persian philosopher Avicenna who claimed to have read The Metaphysics over forty times because he just couldn’t understand it [44]. Some commentators would even defend the practice openly, as if it’s your own damn fault that Aristotle couldn’t make a clear point. For example, the ancient philosopher Ammonius Hermiae once famously remarked that “Aristotle uses obscurity as a veil, so that good people may for that reason stretch their mind even more, whereas empty minds that are lost through carelessness will be put to flight by the obscurity [45].” It's as if philosophers collectively realize that Aristotle is impossible to comprehend, only to shift the blame onto you, the reader, for failing to comprehend him.

This is a well-documented practice known as obscurantism, and it is a cancerous tumor on the history of Western philosophy. Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, and countless other influential figures are all notorious for their excessively obtuse writing. It's a grossly unprofessional practice, yet modern university students are required to slog through it anyway if they ever expect to earn their degrees. With all due respect, I should not have to utilize a magic decoder ring just to make sense out of somebody’s arguments. It is not a sign of genius when philosophers fail at basic communication, but bumbling incompetence. Any idiot can write a bunch of convoluted gibberish and then demand that the reader make sense of it after the fact. Real genius is when the argument is so undeniably clear and forceful, that the reader cannot help but feel compelled to adopt its conclusion. 

There’s a classic children’s tale called The Emperor’s New Clothes, in which two swindlers are hired by a vain emperor to produce the finest outfit ever conceived. The garments, they tell him, are so delicate and lightweight that the suit feels like one is wearing nothing at all. Furthermore, the silk has a magical property that causes it to appear invisible to only those who are either stupid or incompetent. Thus, when presented with absolutely nothing at all, the emperor feels afraid to speak up, lest the royal court come to suspect he is unfit for office. The emperor's advisers likewise refuse to speak up, lest they be exposed as unfit for the offices they hold. The end result is a naked emperor and his entourage setting out on parade in front of the entire city, apparently oblivious to the whole scam. 

There’s even a modern variation on the classic story which explores the aftermath of a young child exposing the emperor’s nudity. Rather than break the illusion as one would expect, the exact opposite occurs. Dubbed The Courtier's Reply, the entire entourage simply doubles down on the whole pretense, even going so far as to mock the boy for his ignorance of the finer things [45]. Meanwhile, the emperor is still strutting around naked, and the illusion continues despite being openly challenged.

This charming little folktale is a perfect metaphor for modern institutions of metaphysical study. Every year, naïve young college students around the world pay good money to attend university courses in metaphysics. Presumably, they do this because metaphysics openly markets itself as a place to learn “fundamental truths” about the world “beyond” physics. Students are then presented with a gigantic survey of literature from influential figures across history, and they are promptly instructed to study it in depth if they ever expect to earn passing grades. Little do they realize that much of this literature was deliberately written to be as obtuse as possible, and very little of the subject matter has anything whatsoever to do with fundamental truths about reality. Most of the major questions have been heavily debated for centuries, and not a single one has ever been resolved in any definitive capacity. Anyone who complains about this state of affairs is promptly told to suck it up and study harder, because who are you to question the greatest minds in the history of philosophy? The end result is that many philosophers plainly recognize the complete uselessness of the entire field, but they lack the courage to speak up about it. Everyone thinks that everyone else believes, and so the illusion of support is validated through public compliance [46].

To be fair, if you honestly enjoy metaphysics and think it’s the coolest stuff ever, then that’s totally fine. You do you, and no one will care. But the moment you start advertising metaphysics as a serious field of study that explores real questions with real answers, then I’m afraid you're only speaking lies. The very word itself has no official meaning, which means there is no way to tell what questions are "metaphysical" in nature and which ones are not. Metaphysics has no formal methodology, either, which means everyone just writes whatever they want, and there is no conceivable way to make any progress or evaluate quality. Metaphysics openly claims to study the world through pure, armchair philosophy, apparently oblivious to the fact that this is a fundamentally impossible thing to do. Metaphysics embraces obscurantism, which means the majority of its literature is purposefully written to be so vague as to be outright meaningless. Any outsider who demands that metaphysics hold itself accountable to objective standards is usually derided for their ignorant dogmatism. This is in spite of the fact that metaphysics itself continuously publishes research questioning its own merit! Many philosophers openly acknowledge all of these issues in their own self-authored textbooks, only to then praise metaphysics as the absolute pinnacle of human achievement. 

But hey, maybe that's being too harsh. Maybe you personally know all of the definitive answers to all the big questions about meaning and methodology in metaphysics. That's great! But until you convince the broader community of professional philosophers to officially endorse your view, it will only ever remain exactly that: your view. Authors will not publish it in their textbooks, professionals will not follow your methodology, and no one is going to stop any pretenders from promoting their own alternative views in place of yours. These are hardly unreasonable conditions to demand, either, given that most other professions absolutely satisfy all of these requirements. So until metaphysics can finally get its act together and decide what on Earth it officially wants to be, it will only ever remain a haven for incompetence, fraud, and propaganda.

Notes/References 

1. Richard M. Gale: “I view [metaphysics] as one of the glories of our species, one of our greatest cultural achievements…” from The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics (2002) 
2. Stephen Mumford: “We don’t study metaphysics so that we can be healthy and productive. We make ourselves healthy and productive so that we can do metaphysics!” from Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 108 (2012)
3. Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands: “Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy. Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless to deal with reality. We could not feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect. Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live.” Importance of Philosophy [link]
4.  Brian Kemple: “…metaphysics, which is the summit of philosophical inquiry—fulfills our most fundamental human need.” Why Study Metaphysics? (2016) [link]
5. W. Turner: “In the first place, metaphysics is the natural co-ordinating science which crowns the unifying efforts of the other sciences. It accomplishes in the highest plane of knowledge that process of unification towards which the human mind tends irresistibly.” From  “Metaphysics” In The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) [link] 
6. David Bourget and David J. Chalmers, “What do philosophers believe?” Philosophical Studies, Vol. 170, No. 3, pp. 465-500 (2014)
7. David Bourget and David J. Chalmers, "Philosophers on philosophy: The 2020 philpapers survey." Unpublished manuscript (2021) 
8. David Chalmers, David Manley, and Ryan Wasserman (eds), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, Clarendon Press, Oxford (2009)
9. Tuomas E. Tahko, An Introduction to Metametaphysics, Cambridge University Press (2015) 
10. Richard M. Gale, “It is not an accident that none of the included essays attempts to say what metaphysics is, to describe the methods for doing it and the rules or criteria for assessing the success of a metaphysical theory. For all such metaphilosophical attempts have failed miserably.” From The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics, Blackwell Publishers (2002) 
11. Peter van Inwagen and Meghan Sullivan: "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is… The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define." From “Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014)
12. William Lane Craig and J. P. Mooreland "It is difficult, if not impossible to come up with an adequate definition of metaphysics." Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, InterVersity Press (2003)
13. John W. Carroll and Ned Markosian: "Part of the problem is that it's practically impossible to get any two philosophers to agree on a single definition of 'metaphysics' (and the book is, after all, written by two philosophers)." From An Introduction to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press (2010)
14. Michael J. Loux: "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. If one looks to works in metaphysics, one finds quite different characterizations of the discipline… Disagreement about the nature of metaphysics is certainly tied to its long history." From Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Ed, Routeledge (2006) 
15. Richard M. Gale, “Just as the best way to learn how to hit tennis strokes is to watch good players in action, the best way, in fact the only way, to learn how to do metaphysics is to be exposed to paradigm cases of metaphysics in action and then try to answer in kind.” From The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics, Blackwell Publishers (2002) 
16. Stephen Mumford: “The best way to understand an activity is often through doing it rather than theorizing about it. In that case, we start by doing some metaphysics…” from Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press (2012)
17. Michael J. Loux: "…what is supposed to be a single discipline with a single subject matter turns out to be the examination of a hodgepodge of unrelated topics." From Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Ed., Routledge (2006)
    
18. Panayot Butchvarov, Being Qua Being: A Theory of Identity, Existence, and Predication, Indiana University Press (1979)
19. Gregory Doolan (author/editor), The Science of Being as Being, Metaphysical Investigations, The Catholic University of America Press (2012)
20. Christopher Shields, The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, Chapter 14: Being Qua Being, Oxford University Press (2012)
21. Allan Bäck, “What is being qua being?” Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp 37-58 (2004)
22. Robert Sokolowski, “The Science of Being as Being in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Wippel,” from The Science of Being as Being: Metaphysical Investigations, Gregory T. Doolan (editor), The Catholic University of America Press (2012)
23. Philip Merlan, “On the terms ‘metaphysics’ and ‘being-qua-being’,” The Monist, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp 174-194 (1968)
24. John W. Carroll and Ned Markosian, An Introduction to Metaphysics, pp. 3 (2010)
25. Amie L. Thomasson, “What can we do, when we do metaphysics?” from The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology, edited by Giuseppina D’Oro and Søren Overgaard, Cambridge University Press (2017)
26. Peter van Inwagen and Meghan Sullivan: “Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg.” From “Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) [link]
27. Merriam Webster: “Just as physics deals with the laws that govern the physical world (such as those of gravity or the properties of waves), metaphysics describes what is beyond physics—the nature and origin of reality itself, the immortal soul, and the existence of a supreme being.” [link]
28. Jennifer Trusted: “As used by Aristotle, the word ‘metaphysics’ meant ‘beyond physics,’ that is beyond the scope of physical science.” From Physics and Metaphysics: Theories of Space and Time, preface (2003)
29.  E. J. Lowe: “But metaphysics is not at heart an empirical science---it does not typically appeal to experimental or observational data in support of its claims,” from A Survey of Metaphysics, Oxford University Press (2002)
30. Kit Fine, “What is Metaphysics?” In Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, edited by T. E. Tahko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2011)
31. Timothy Williamson: “Natural scientists and metaphysicians may seem to be asking the same questions. The difference is that the natural scientists base their answers on observation, experiment, measurement and calculation, while the metaphysicians base theirs on armchair reflection.” From “What is metaphysics?” in The British Academy (2020) [link]
32. From David Bourget and David J. Chalmers (2014): A-theory = 27%, B-theory = 38%, Other = 36%
33. R. Sherr, K. T. Bainbridge, and H. H. Anderson, “Transmutation of Mercury by Fast Neutrons,” Physical Review, Vol 60 (1941) 
34. “The editorial staff and their consultants were careful to present official Church teachings in a straightforward manner, and in areas where there are legitimate disputes over fact and differences in interpretation of events, they made every effort to insure a fair and balanced presentation of the issues,” from the Forward to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Volume 1, Gale Group, Inc., (2003)
35. John W. Carroll and Ned Markosian: "We have gone out of our way to introduce topcis and arguments without pressuring the reader to settle on any definite conclusions." Preface to An Introduction to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press (2010)
36. E. J. Lowe: “It should also be stressed, however, that the book is by no means narrowly partisan in the sense of promoting my own opinions on particular issues whilst excluding mention of others.” From the Preface to A Survey of Metaphysics, Oxford University Press (2002)
37. “Scientism, by restricting valid knowledge to the level of science, overgeneralizes the scientific method and overrestricts reality to the confines of matter alone.” From “Scientism,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Volume 9, Gale Group, Inc., (2003)
    
38. Richard M. Gale: “This demand for a cognitive discipline to have a decision procedure for determining who is right smacks of scientism…” from the Preface to The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics, Blackwell Publishers (2002) 
39. Edward Feser, “Against Scientism,” Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, Gazelle Books (2014)
40. From David Bourget and David J. Chalmers (2020): 63% of respondents accept or lean towards the Analytic/Synthetic distinction  
41. Takatura Ando, Metaphysics: A Critical Survey of its Meaning (1974) 
42. “The inceptor in arts at Paris was sworn during the 14th century to teach nothing inconsistent with Aristotle, and as late as 1624 the French Parlement threatened with death all who taught anything contrary to his doctrines.” From "Aristotelianism," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Volume 1, Gale Group, Inc., pp 674 (2003)
43. William Lane Craig and J. P. Mooreland “Along with logic and epistemology, metaphysics is the most basic part of philosophy. And metaphysics has been the longstanding friend of theology. The early creeds of Christendom are filled with metaphysical terms—person, essence, substance, subsistence—and they give testimony to the help that metaphysics can give to the development of systematic theology.” Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, InterVarsity Press (2003)
    
44. “I read the Metaphysics [of Aristotle] but did not understand what it contained and was confused about the author’s purpose to the point that I reread it forty times and consequently memorized it. In spite of this I still did not understand it or what was intended by it, and I said, despairing of myself, there is no way to understand this book!” From Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, by Dimitri Gutas (2014) 
45. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
    
46. Damon Centola, Robb Willer, and Michael Macy, “The Emperor’s Dilemma: A Computational Model of Self-Enforcing Norms,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, N0. 4, pp. 1009-1040 (2005)