The major areas of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Logic can also be considered a branch of mathematics, but mathematics is more philosophical than the average man in the street thinks it, so that's hardly a problem. Epistemology is the study of knowledge itself: what is knowledge, and what are its limits? Ethics is the study of goodness and badness, you might say: how can we determine what is good and what is bad? Metaphysics asks questions of the fundamental nature of things: what is time, what is space, what is the thing I call "self", and does it have free will?

At the time of writing this article, I'm engaged in a relatively advanced undergraduate unit of metaphysics (PHIL358 at Macquarie Uni), and I'm now about three quarters of the way through it, so I'm better placed to talk about metaphysics than I was a few months ago. I'd like to share some of my findings with you, particularly if you've never studied metaphysics formally — an executive summary of metaphysics, if you like.

Metaphysics is bunk. It's a complete load of bull. Arguments have been made for and against every conceivable metaphysical proposition, and although fashion has favoured one argument or another at given times, we're no closer to actually figuring out the fundamental nature of things than was Aristotle or any of his predecessors. And don't think that science in general or physics in particular have gotten us any closer. Science has had its influence, I think, particularly in making physicalism and determinism more popular, but not in terms of establishing anything metaphysical. If there were an award for "Area of Knowledge Demonstrating the Least Progress Ever in All of Human History", I would nominate "metaphysics". Some would argue with that nomination, but I stand by it.

So why do we persist with metaphysics if it's such a futile effort? Because it's important, or at least some of it is. Some of it is driven by idle curiosity, but other parts are deeply significant to who we are, why we are here, and what the heck life is all about.

Take "physicalism" and "determinism", for example, which I mentioned earlier in passing. These are metaphysical schools of thought which are very friendly to science, and quite popular as a consequence. "Physicalism" is the idea that matter and energy are the ultimate reality: if we have a "soul", then this is merely a property of the matter from which we are made, not a separate thing which is associated with the body in some way. "Determinism" is the idea that everything obeys physical laws, and that predicting the future is therefore a matter of knowing these laws and the present state of the universe.

Note what these ideas imply for us as people. They imply that "free will" is basically an illusion, since the future is determined by the past. My decision to write these exact words could have been predicted at the first moment of the universe, given a full knowledge of the state of the universe at that time, and a full knowledge of the laws of physics. These ideas are also incompatible with any kind of continued personal existence after physical death, and thus incompatible with a significant number of religious views. Morality is influenced a great deal by these ideas also: what is to be understood of crime and punishment, for example, if all the players are merely cogs in a universal machine, acting in a manner pre-determined from the start of time?

But, as it happens, we don't know the complete laws of physics, and unless someone finds a way to circumvent Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we can't know the complete state of any given particle in the universe, let alone the universe as a whole. This presents an epistemic problem: a problem of the limitations of our knowledge. And all too often, this is where the problem lands: back in the court of epistemology. If the universe were deterministic, how would we know? How would we know if it weren't? How do we distinguish between non-determinism and ignorance of determinism? Can we even treat these as meaningfully different?

Knowledge has limits, and there is good reason to believe that the vast majority of metaphysics lies beyond our ability to know. Small wonder, then, that most metaphysical judgments are held on the basis of religious faith or personal taste: what other foundation can they have? We find ourselves in quite a bind: the problems of metaphysics are too important to ignore, yet apparently beyond our power to solve.