Metaphysical poetry is concerned with the relationship between man and experience, particularly love, God, and beauty. Metaphysical poems are lyrics poems and tend to be romantic and concerning the nature of sensual experiences, far-fetched imagery and theological concepts, however they may also include lyrics about art and learning. These lyrics tend to investigate the world not by mysticism or intuition, but rather rational discussion with subtle arguments.

Metaphysical poetry can be characterized by its abundance of intellectual wit, irony and unusual metaphors, yet intricacy, complexity and ultimately its inventiveness of metaphysical conceits. It is often that poets of metaphysical poetry express several

arguments into their poems, which frequently result in a paradox. Frequently, the last two lines of metaphysical poems present a final ‘conceit’.

The term, “Metaphysical poets” was introduced in the seventeenth century by the poet, Samuel Johnson. This term usually refers  to the work of the poets listed below, however, “metaphisical poetry” can also refer to any poetry which discusses metaphysics, a branch of philosophy.

Neo-Platonism was the major influence for much metaphysical poetry, such as John Donne. John Donne was one of the most influential metaphysical poets of his time. Many of his lyrics are concerned with spirituality, which he expressed a personal interest for.

Metaphysical poets:

John Donne (1572–1631)

Saint Robert Southwell (c. 1561–1595)

Richard Crashaw (c. 1613–1649)

Andrew Marvell (1621–1678)

Henry Vaughan (1622–1695)

Thomas Traherne (1636 or 1637 – 1674)

George Herbert (1593–1633)

Read more on metaphysical poetry at Wikipedia.

What is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing; it is the study of physical reality and beyond. It includes the spiritual relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. Metaphysics is concerned with the principles and fundamental nature of reality and being. Literally, meta (beyond) and physics (physical) – metaphysics addresses the philosophical questions of our being and existence – “What am I?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, “What is reality?”.

Spiritual metaphysics combines the studies of metaphysics with spirituality, and is concerned with the metaphysical, incorporeal source of reality and being. You can learn more about metaphysics and spirituality by reading the articles regularly posted here on our blog, Spiritual Metaphysics.

Moral relativism is an ethical theory that holds the view that there are no objective ethical truths and that moral facts are dependent to a particular individual, group, or society. This view says that a moral fact for one culture or society may be viewed as bad or not morally acceptable in another and vice versa. In other words, this theory is saying that there is simply no such thing as moral absolute.

The individualistic form of this view, which means that morality is dependent on every individual, is known as ethical subjectivism. In a societal level, in which moral facts vary between cultures, moral relativism is called cultural relativism.

To better understand moral relativism, we need to know about the nature of objective truths. Truths that are deemed independent of our beliefs or perceptions are called objective truths. A typical example is the activity of the moon around the Earth. The moon orbits the Earth regardless if people believe it or not. Another example is the orbit of the Earth around the sun. There was once a prevailing view that it was the sun which circled around the earth. Modern science was able to prove it was the other way around. It was then an objective truth, i.e. that the Earth orbits around the sun even though majority of the people then believed the opposite.

Subjective truths, on the other hand, hold at least in part due to our beliefs and individual perceptions. The taste of pork, for instance, varies from person to person. Other people find pork delicious while others find it repulsive, either due to sensual perception or belief. Whether pork is delicious or not is considered subjective.

This is the stance of moral relativism. Ethical truths are viewed as subjective rather than objective. Lying can be considered good or bad, depending on the individual, society or culture. It may be that for some people, lying is routine and acceptable, while for others it is not.

If taken in mild form, ethical theory is right, even obvious. Different people have different moral obligations–I have a responsibility to pay my bills; you do not. Everyone is immersed in his or her unique circumstances and these factors affect our decision-making including our view regarding what is morally right or wrong. It can therefore be said that morality depends on the circumstances. A more serious form of moral relativism, the usual meaning of the term itself, is that moral truths are relative to people or groups of people and not merely relative to circumstances.  This can be problematic in a real life scenario and can even be a cause for anarchy. If everyone perceives his opinion or perception as the only right one, the world would be very different than what it is right now.

In the case of paying the bills, moral absolutism is stronger and more consistent since you are supposed to do everything you can to pay your bills properly. Repaying debts is a moral absolute and is the very essence of the credit card business. Everyone has the duty to repay their debts.

There exists a plethora of arguments about God and its existence. Even before the foundation of the earliest civilizations, man had been on a quest to shed light on the existence of God and its nature. Over many centuries, many different schools of thought tried to find an answer to the perennial question about God. Any thinker who strive to understand the different arguments about God should ask a basic question, “How likely is it that God exists?”

This preliminary question should always be the starting point of any debate about God. Our assumptions and presuppositions on this problem are very likely to enrich and color our assessment of our evidence for and against God’s existence. To establish the inherent probability of God’s existence as a priori is therefore a worthwhile meeting point for any argument we encounter on the subject. If our starting point is God’s non-existence, then it would be very challenging, and highly unlikely, to persuade us of God’s existence. Any positive points we will encounter about the existence of God would be viewed as fallacious and flawed if we start with the presumption of atheism that there’s no God. This would only make us ever more suspicious of any purported theistic proofs.

On the other hand, if we shall start with theistic presumption that God exists, it would be easier to find good points and persuasive arguments that others would normally not. Being open to intellectual discussions about God’s existence will make inconclusive evidence as confirmation of our suspicion deep inside us. This presumption will thus have a strong effect on our approach to counter any argument concerning God and its existence.

God’s Existence as Improbable

It is easy to think that God does not exist. If ever God exists, everything about him is unlimited–his whole being is infinite. Ockham’s approach on this subject would tell us to always prefer the simpler explanation. This means that if confronted with these two conflicting explanations, we must avoid postulating God’s existence to explain evidence. If presented with two explanations, one trying to give light to the argument about God’s existence and the other about non-existence, the second explanation is always the more likely explanation and therefore should be selected. For Ockham, the explanation not invoking God’s existence is the more economical one–it is economical to assume any number of finite beings than it is to postulate one infinite being. As a hypothesis, God’s existence is already considered highly unlikely to stand its ground. This condition makes the bias against theism justified.

Following this line of thought, it is even easy to think that God’s existence is not just improbable but even impossible. There are many conflicting doctrines about God and some have even shown self-contradictions themselves. If we take these conflicting explanations about God as a logical progression, it is very likely to arrive at a logical resolution. Logical contradictions are normally strong arguments against the thing being true or existent. This would establish a resolution that would trash theistic arguments about the existence of God.

God’s existence as Probable

For the purpose of argument, let us assume that many different contradictions about God can be resolved.  If this is the case, then it is possible that God exists and would be a strong counter-argument against the improbability of God laid out above. In his work The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne observed that it is easier to postulate an unlimited force than a limited one. His argument says that if one postulates a limited force, one is actually postulating two things–the force and whatever that limits it. If, on the other hand, one postulates pure unlimited force, one is only postulating one thing–the force, without anything that limits it.

Scientists creating theories will normally use zeroes or infinites unless there’s a good reason not to. For example, the speed of light was conceived to be infinite until a strong experimental data confirmed a finite value. Scientists recognize that an infinite force has a higher probability than any great finite force. Using this argument, Swinburne believes that this methodology can be generalized. An infinite being is easier to conceive and the most probable being.