All or Nothing Metaphysics

Some skeptical philosophers, trying to play the Socratic "What is x?" game, assume an all or nothing metaphysics that is completely false. An all or nothing metaphysics assumes that there must be necessary and sufficient conditions for membership into a class or else nothing will qualify for membership into that class.

Skeptical feminist philosophers use this kind of argument. Since, they argue, there exists individuals who fall between the "male/female" categories, then the categories themselves must be suspect. Thus, some skeptical feminist philosophers believe that there is no difference between men and women since some people are neither strictly male or female.

With this kind of argument, a skeptical philosopher could argue that there is no difference between trees and bushes since there are individual plants that fall between these two categories. Also, since there is no sharp distinction between bushes and grasses, one could conclude that by implication there is no difference between trees and grasses. With some work, a skeptical philosopher could make a mess of all of the nouns in the English language thereby undermining meaningful communication.

But the existence of hermaphrodites does not disprove the difference of men and women. Instead, they prove that nature is more complicated than the simplistic all or nothing metaphysics. Nature does provide clear categories, but in each case the categories are fuzzy at the borders. The problem isn't with nature, the problem is with our overly simplistic metaphysics.

There is a real difference between men and women even though there are individuals who are not clearly male or female. There is a real difference between trees and bushes even though there are individuals who are not clearly one or the other. (As Wittgenstein would point out, the only people who say such obvious things are either crazy people or philosophers.)

Visit the beach to witness a good example. There is a clear difference between the land and the water, and anyone who thinks otherwise is free to try and walk on the water. However, there is not a sharp distinction at the border between the land and the water -- it is a constantly changing and mixed area of both land and water. Sometimes the tide is in, sometimes the tide is out, and the waves are constantly mixing up the border between the two -- but the land and the water are still distinct.

Nature provides clear examples of difference even though the borders are often not clear between the two. Philosophers need to give up the all or nothing metaphysics.