You updated your password.

Reset Password

Enter the email address you used to create your account. We will email you instructions on how to reset your password.

Reset Password Modal Form

Forgot Your Email Address? Contact Us

Exploring Metaphysics, 2nd Edition

Take a metaphysical journey from the atom to the multiverse as you explore some of the biggest questions that have puzzled philosophers for centuries.
Guidebook
 
 
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Not Accurate This was simply a lecture on the presenters personal views presented as gospel with no room for discussion. There was also an strong sense of arrogance in the presenters style. I have taken MANY of the Great Courses and loved them. This one is not worth even a rating on a 1, it deserves a zero rating
Date published: 2026-08-04
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Presenter has no Soul Starting off a lecture series by asserting why Neil deGrasse Tyson is 100% wrong—and claiming that Sean Carroll agrees with this assessment—is not a sound foundation for encouraging critical thinking. Rather than offering constructive criticism, the presenter delivers a condemnation of Tyson, setting a problematic tone for everything that follows. He spends a considerable amount of time stating that he is correct and why he is correct, exhibiting behavior that feels distinctly cultish and controlling. It gets worse in Lecture 2, which I turned off about halfway through. The presenter goes to great lengths to explain why the soul does not exist. He relies primarily on split-brain studies—focusing on patients who experience cognitive interruptions regarding what one side of their body is doing—alongside older definitional work by philosophers. While those early thinkers provided interesting and provocative work for their time, they operated within a limited scope in the vast universe of thought. They weren't necessarily wrong; they simply offered one perspective within a cosmology of many ideas. Indeed, a "cosmology of many ideas" may very well be the core of metaphysics. Regardless, the presenter flatly declares that souls simply do not exist. On a personal level, when my child was born and I held him for the first time, my immediate reaction was a deep understanding of his soul. This was an exact, immediate sense. Literally as he first touched my arms, my initial thoughts—before words were even formed by my mind—were "I know this soul." Twenty-five years later, the connection between us remains profound to a degree that cannot be explained except by acknowledging that souls do exist. Skeptics might dismiss this as mere chemical interactions in the brain, but it is far more than that. It could just as easily be analogous to Dark Matter—a phenomenon so mysterious that it is uncomprehended by current science. Indeed, Dark Matter could be our souls; souls may not necessarily reside in our physical bodies as we currently understand them. After all, Dark Matter is something we interact with that, without the use of telescopes and immense distance, we wouldn't even know existed. That, ultimately, is what metaphysics is all about: reaching beyond science into mysteries that may never be fully grasped intellectually or analytically. The presenter completely misses this. He demonstrates a fundamental incompetence—if for no other reason than claiming science is not deductive. In reality, science relies on both deduction and induction in a continuous cycle of reasoning and evaluation. And worse, he ruins a fascinating topic with his dogmatic, all-knowing stance.
Date published: 2026-08-04
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Lecturer's scientific knowledge is flaed. I never got beyond lecture one because the lecturer has a faulty understanding of science. Metaphysical questions are not subject to scientific review because they cannot be proved or disproved. The lecturer forgets the scientific principle that "absence of proof is not proof of absence". To my knowledge only one null result has been taken as proof of absence. That is the Michelson Morley experiment looking for the luminiferous aether . This hypothesis that the aether existed was based on a faulty remise that light needed a medium to travel in. The hypothesis had many flaws especially what the aether was composed of. Maxwell put the hypothesis to rest when he discovered that light was a self propagating electromagnetic wave but the aether was considered disproven before that. Metaphysical questions like is there a God can never be proven or disproven so it is not a subject for science. Questions like: Is humanity worth saving is also not subject to scientific analysis. The example of ESP experiments is flawed. ESP hasn't been ruled out because it could not be replicated in a lab. It has been shown to be extremely unlikely considering that science has ruled out all known mechanisms by which it could occur and ESP could not be duplicated in a lab. This doesn't rule out a supernatural mechanism so it doesn't PROVE there is no ESP as a scientific fact. . In short in the modern world metaphysics is just a pile of words that amount to no proof or disproof of anything. . Okay if you want to kill time and don't mind getting a headache. I have taken just about every science course in the Great Courses library and have learned from all of them. Even so I cannot disprove magic or anything supernatural . The only thing I can conclude is that the supernatural is not reliable as a means to do or explain anything and is therefore not worth pursuing. And I think it is clear that this course isn't going to change that conclusion. .
Date published: 2026-08-04
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Personal Views Presented as Academic Consensus The course covers many interesting questions and arguments in metaphysics. My main concern is that the presenter does not always distinguish clearly between established academic positions, disputed interpretations, and his own views. There is nothing wrong with a lecturer defending a personal position, but the audience should be told when this is happening. At times, it is difficult to know whether a conclusion reflects broad scholarly agreement, one view among several, or the presenter’s preferred interpretation. This is especially problematic in a survey course, where viewers unfamiliar with the field may come away with a misleading sense of which claims are widely accepted. The course contains stimulating material, but it would be academically stronger and more useful to general viewers if the presenter were more explicit about the status of the positions he discusses.
Date published: 2026-08-03
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Biased in favor of physicalism I expected this to be a typical analytic philosopher's understanding of metaphysics (sorry, but analytic philosophers tend not to be spectacularly well informed on the history of philosophy). But I thought it might be informative and clear. Unfortunately the lecturer presents an extremely biased case in favor of physicalism in lecture 2 (I didn't see the first and I don't think I can stomach more). He conflates Plato's understanding of a soul with Descartes' (Plato never says the soul is indivisible, quite the contrary). I was willing to overlook that. Honestly, I was expecting that. But then he offers the same tired causal closure argument against interaction dualism without once mentioning that causal closure isn't science; it's not even scientific. Science itself has no problem with immaterial entities like photons interacting with material entities. Causal closure is a metaphysical argument in favor of physicalism, one that relies on 17th century notions of indivisible material substances as the basis of all physical reality. Given quantum mechanics has found no billiard balls at the bottom, so to speak, it's astonishing to me that physicalists still take this causal framework seriously. He presents only one side of the argument for how the behavior of split brain patients "prove" the soul/mind is divisible, without once mentioning whether the patients perceive themselves as divided (they don't), and so his argument fails to prove his point against the integrity of consciousness as it is experienced. He cherry picks evidence against NDEs and exhibits here the very ad hoc reasoning he warns us against in the next breath. He slips in a scientific prediction-based style of reasoning when philosophers have a right to question whether that is the appropriate kind of reasoning for metaphysics. He presents a dated neuroscience that shows where each area of the brain supposedly "produces" various functions, but fails to mention the evidence against his tidy map of neural correlates—for instance those who don't even have such brain matter as say, the language region of the brain, and yet are capable of speaking more than one language. Plus the case where 90% of the brain was missing (yes, look it up). Not to mention the living organisms that don't have brains and yet demonstrate intelligence. Neurons aren't obviously all there is to the story. But such nuance, which I have come to expect from a lecturer on the Great Courses, was unfortunately entirely lacking here.
Date published: 2026-08-03
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Excellent Course By An Excellent Professor I am very much enjoying this course! The topics and vocab can be dense, but the lectures are thorough, clear, and concise. I enjoy the professor's delivery and examples. Would definitely recommend if philosophy & metaphysics are of any interest.
Date published: 2026-08-03
Rated 1 out of 5 by from They need to get someone new to teach this subject It's too bad they brought him back for a 2nd edition. It's time for this subject to be presented by someone who isn't a dogmatic physicalist/atheist. There are a lot of better philosophers out there who would do this course justice. Retire this guy.
Date published: 2026-08-02
Rated 1 out of 5 by from If learning is the object of this course it failed The pace is too fast and jerky with the presenter assuming the viewer understands his verbal quirks. The subject matter has great potential but I just couldn't get through the first lecture.
Date published: 2026-08-02
  • y_2026, m_8, d_6, h_10
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.48
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_2, tr_8
  • loc_en_CA, sid_60180, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.1
  • CLOUD, getReviews, 9.76ms
  • REVIEWS, PRODUCT
Exploring Metaphysics, 2nd Edition

Trailer

Why Study Metaphysics?

01: Why Study Metaphysics?

Although Aristotle is known as the father of metaphysics, he's not the one who gathered his writings and coined the term. In the thousands of years since Aristotle wrote his papers and lectures on the topic, philosophers and scientists have continued to work to develop answers to Aristotle's most significant questions--What is reality? Why does anything exist at all?--questions that are just as relevant today as they were in ancient Greece.

33 min
Do Souls Exist?

02: Do Souls Exist?

Explore substance dualism, the arguments for and against it, and its relationship to the soul hypothesis. If souls do not exist, does that mean we don't have beliefs, personalities, or emotions? Could there be an afterlife if there are no souls? See how an exploration of these questions, and their surprising answers, motivates a host of other metaphysical questions that we will explore in the upcoming lectures.

32 min
Are the Brain and Mind Identical?

03: Are the Brain and Mind Identical?

Learn about the issue known as "the hard problem of consciousness." Are the brain and the mind numerically the same thing? If they were, would that dissolve the hard problem? As you think more deeply, you'll see the problems with suggesting that the mind and brain are identical. And you might be surprised to discover that some philosophers think the hard problem may ultimately be unanswerable.

32 min
Does the Mind Have Causal Powers?

04: Does the Mind Have Causal Powers?

Consider two theories of mind--property dualism and epiphenomenalism. Is your mind an emergent property of your brain with its own causal powers? Or is it more like your shadow--caused by your body, but just along for the ride? And could a fundamental "psychological force" help us find the answer the hard problem of consciousness we have been looking for?

30 min
Do Minds Even Exist?

05: Do Minds Even Exist?

Would it help to eliminate minds from our study of metaphysics altogether and just assume they don't exist? Learn why this theory, called eliminativism, has a lot going for it, even though many think it can't possibility be true. Then explore how we might use all we've learned, and the concept of supervenience, to solve the hard problem of consciousness--but generate more questions. Could machines have minds? Do humans have free will?

32 min
Could Machines Have Minds?

06: Could Machines Have Minds?

Explore functionalism, the theory which suggests that mental states have a functional definition. For example, it wouldn't matter what a being's brain is made of; if it functions in the same way as a brain that produces a mind, then the being should be described as "minded." Obviously, this would apply to evolved alien beings? If they behave like us, they are minded like us. But what about computers? Could they have minds?

32 min
Will Machines Have Minds?

07: Will Machines Have Minds?

If you believe that machines could have minds, does that automatically mean that they will one day? Might they already? Explore "phi," integrated information theory, and the "grue" problem, to explore what we can and cannot know about the potential consciousness of Large Language Models (commonly called "AI").

34 min
Would an Android Be a Person?

08: Would an Android Be a Person?

If you saw the award-winning film Ex Machina, you've met Ava, certainly one of the most famous Android movie stars. But was she a person? Could an Android ever be a person? Explore the numerous characteristics that make a person a person, and the differences between intelligence, sapience, sentience, and self-awareness.

34 min
Does Psychology Preserve Personal Identity?

09: Does Psychology Preserve Personal Identity?

Do you have any memories from your childhood? If so, do those memories of childhood make you the same person you are now? Or do you have those memories because you've been the same person all along? Explore the veracity of the theory of psychological continuity. And what can we learn from that about the preservation of personal identity?

32 min
Does Physical Continuity Preserve Identity?

10: Does Physical Continuity Preserve Identity?

Given that the physical material of your body is gradually replaced over time--including the proteins inside your brain cells--what can be said about your physical continuity? Study the concept put forth by contemporary philosopher Peter Unger. His theory might seem intuitive to us at first glance, but how can we address the issue of vagueness?

33 min
Do Persons Even Exist?

11: Do Persons Even Exist?

Do we speak about persons just because it's convenient and because we have a very general sense of what we mean? Consider the possibility that nothing exists beyond bodies and experiences. Explore the "closest continuer" idea of philosopher Robert Nozick and the arguments that have been made against it. In the metaphysical sense, does "person" refer to anything real?

33 min
Is an Afterlife Possible?

12: Is an Afterlife Possible?

If there is no soul that exists and preserves numerical identity, does that necessarily mean there could not be an afterlife? Explore philosopher Peter van Inwagen's concepts regarding the afterlife. Although many people find his ideas extraordinarily strange, Van Inwagen argues that his proposal is the only logically possible way for a person's personal identity to be preserved in an afterlife.

35 min
Does the Future Exist?

13: Does the Future Exist?

Can statements about the future be true? If not, how could God know what the future holds? But if they are true, what makes them true? Wouldn't the future have to exist? But if the future already exists, is any alternate future possible? And If not, can we have free will. Explore the subjects of "temporal ontology" and divine foreknowledge, as we law the groundwork for a discussion on human free will.

35 min
Are You the Ultimate Cause of Your Actions?

14: Are You the Ultimate Cause of Your Actions?

Philosopher Immanuel Kant thought that if a person has free will, the causal story of why a person does what they do must trace back to that person and them alone. If what we decide to do is not ultimately up to us, then we are not acting freely even though we think we are. Explore what free will requires and how it is threatened by both determinism and indeterminism.

33 min
Is Determinism Compatible with Free Will?

15: Is Determinism Compatible with Free Will?

Explore classic compatibilism and semi-compatibilism and learn what these theories can teach us about free will and determinism. Could our world contain elements of both freedom and determinism, depending on how we define free will? And what about the libertarian view? Does it offer a better way to understand human choice and the world around us?

32 min
What If We Don't Have Free Will?

16: What If We Don't Have Free Will?

If we believed and admitted that we did not have free will, would we be unable to hold people responsible for their actions? Or should we even try? Would knowing we do not have free will keep us from finding meaning in our lives and achieving our full potential? Also, explore the teachings of philosophers such as Manuel Vargas and Daniel Dennett who address free will, but in a different way than you might have ever thought about it.

32 min
What Is Causation?

17: What Is Causation?

Examine what it means to suggest that one thing, A, is the cause of some other thing, B? Although it initially seems easy, upon examination it is very difficult to explain. To attempt to do so, philosophers have introduced the concept of possible worlds--which are not merely alternative universes, but descriptions of an entirely different reality. Learn about their philosophical value, regardless of whether they exist.

34 min
What Is God Like?

18: What Is God Like?

Examine the inconsistencies and contradictions within the traditional tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent) definition of God. Why do some modern philosophers and theologians want to abandon that definition while others believe the idea has coherence? And if all arguments supported by logic and reason fail, does that just mean that belief in God must be a matter of faith?

35 min
Does God Exist by Definition?

19: Does God Exist by Definition?

Examine the ontological argument and discover how it differs from almost every other philosophical argument developed over the past millennium. Explore its advantages over arguments that attempt to prove God's existence from observations about the world around us. If the argument works, belief in God would rest not merely on faith, but on reason itself--a conclusion that has fascinated philosophers for centuries.

32 min
Was the Cosmos Caused?

20: Was the Cosmos Caused?

Explore the cosmological arguments--philosophical attempts to prove God's existence by reasoning from the existence of the cosmos itself. Can the arguments of Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, the proponents of the Kalam Argument, and others succeed in establishing the existence of God? Or do they ultimately leap to the assumption of God's existence without fully justifying that step?

36 min
Was the Universe Designed?

21: Was the Universe Designed?

Examine the fine-tuning argument for God's existence and why so many find it persuasive. Fine-tuning would seem to be much more likely to happen if theism is true, and when we consider the many factors that are precisely needed to support life--from the strength of electromagnetism and gravity to the mass of neutrinos--it seems that the universe is "fine-tuned." And yet, as you'll learn, the fine-tuning argument is fraught with numerous flaws.

34 min
Does Special Relativity Impact Space-Time?

22: Does Special Relativity Impact Space-Time?

Although we tend to think of science and philosophy as two different realms, science originated as an offshoot of philosophy. And rarely has science had a more significant impact on philosophy than Einstein's theory of relativity. Explore the impact of Einstein's theories on the foundational question of metaphysics: what is reality?

34 min
Does General Relativity Impact Space-Time?

23: Does General Relativity Impact Space-Time?

Einstein developed relativity to avoid the conclusion that the aether (space itself) exists. But what relativity seems to entail that spacetime exists. Does Einstein's general theory of relativity contradict his own metaphysical views? Explore this question and how general relativity also entails omnitemporalism (the idea that the past, the present, and the future, all exist simultaneously). See how it raises questions is raises about free will and the possibility of time travel.

35 min
Is Time Travel Possible?

24: Is Time Travel Possible?

If Einstein's theory of relativity implies omnitemporalism--the view that the past, present, and future exist at the same time--what does that tell us about the possibility of time travel? Could a hyperspace tunnel connecting two distant points in spacetime exist? Explore what general relativity and quantum mechanics can tell us about the possibility of wormholes, time travel, and the real nature of time itself.

35 min
Quantum Mechanics I: What Is Light?

25: Quantum Mechanics I: What Is Light?

Explore some of the significant, surprising, and novel ideas philosophers learn from the study of quantum mechanics, one of the foundational branches of physics. It suggests that light is made of both waves and particles? But is that possible? What could that mean? Is there a way to understand this that makes sense? Explore how quantum mechanics tells us that the fundamental nature of reality is different than it intuitively seems.

34 min
Quantum Mechanics II: What Is Matter?

26: Quantum Mechanics II: What Is Matter?

Unlike the macroscopic world of our daily lives, quantum particles can possess properties that cannot be simultaneously measured or precisely known. Discover what we can and cannot know about a quon and how quantum mechanics challenges our most basic assumptions about reality. Can Schrödinger's Cat really be alive and dead at the same time?

34 min
Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Reality?

27: Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Reality?

Explore the concept of instrumentalism, the view that science is only an instrument for making successful predictions about the world. While instrumentalism might allow us to avoid the "weirdness" revealed by quantum mechanics, is what else it entails worth the cost? Explore whether the metaphysician should be satisfied with the suggestion that scientific theories don't describe reality.

35 min
How Should We Interpret Quantum Mechanics?

28: How Should We Interpret Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics tells us that subatomic particles can be two places at once, in two states at once, communicate with each other over long distances instantaneously, and be collapsed down into a particular state by our conscious observation. Is there a way to understand what this tells us about the world? Explore several thought experiments and theories philosophers have used to try to make sense of quantum mechanics.

38 min
Is There a Multiverse?

29: Is There a Multiverse?

In discussing quantum phenomena, we've said our observations cause the collapse of wave functions and make particular events occur. What if, instead of causing collapse, our observation makes us a part of it? Examine the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics and discover the many issues it would solve, even though it might initially sound "crazy" to us.

36 min
Do We Live in a Simulation?

30: Do We Live in a Simulation?

Would we accept a seemingly ridiculous scenario if it answered all unanswered philosophical questions in metaphysics and incorporated what we know about the brain, quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence and every other issue? If so, we might need to accept that we live in a computer simulation. Discover what modern philosophers say about the concept and why they believe we must take the possibility seriously.

39 min

Overview Course No. 60180

More than 2,000 years ago, a Greek philosopher named Aristotle found himself preoccupied with some profound questions: What is reality? What does it mean to exist? What makes something the thing that it is? The questions weren’t new; many philosophers had asked them before, and many would ask them after. There’s even a good chance you’ve wondered about them yourself. Although much of what Aristotle wrote about the sciences has been supplanted by modern knowledge, the questions he asked in Metaphysics about the nature of reality still drive philosophical thought 2,000 years later.

In the 30 fascinating lectures of Exploring Metaphysics, 2nd Edition, philosopher David Kyle Johnson, PhD, shares classical answers to the questions posed in Metaphysics as well as modern ideas Aristotle would never have imagined. While many of the questions your professor shares are relatively new—for example, questions about time travel, wormholes, and multiple universes—some are the same questions Aristotle himself wrote about. Is there any scenario of reality that could satisfy these ancient questions and remain consistent with modern philosophy and scientific progress? Many modern philosophers believe there is. Not only would their answers have stunned Aristotle, but chances are you’ll be amazed as well. From quantum mechanics to wormholes, from Einstein’s theory of relativity to the possibility of an afterlife, and from artificial intelligence to the simulation hypothesis, your professor takes you on a wild metaphysical journey.

About

David Kyle Johnson

We can always take comfort in the fact that we can find and do embrace answers to metaphysical questions.

INSTITUTION
King's College

David Kyle Johnson is a Professor of Philosophy at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He earned his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Oklahoma. He has published papers on free will, the problem of evil, the multiverse, the existence of souls, and many related topics. His articles have appeared in a variety of journals, including Religious Studies, Philosophia Christi, and Think. He is the author of How (Why and When) to Think Scientifically and the editor in chief of the Palgrave Handbook of Popular Culture as Philosophy.

By This Professor