← Back to Library

Contemporary metaphysics (2026) #401

The Student's Review

A philosophy reviewer admits he knows nothing about the subject. Andreas Matthias approaches a 289-page Springer textbook on metaphysics not as an expert but as a learner — and that honest positioning makes his critique sharper than most academic reviews.

Two Ways to Read

Matthias draws a distinction most reviewers ignore. Andreas Matthias writes, "There are fundamentally two kinds of reviews." One comes from an expert hunting for flaws. The other comes from a student trying to learn. He chooses the second path deliberately, noting that expert reviews "can never approach a book in quite the same way as the book's intended audience."

Contemporary metaphysics (2026) #401

As Andreas Matthias puts it, "I know next to nothing about metaphysics." He studied it decades ago, when telephones had cords and music lived on cassettes that melted in summer heat. He's forgotten it all — and he's honest about his bias. Andreas Matthias writes, "I've always been joking that I'm philosophise with a hammer rather than with a scalpel." He wants bold claims and sweeping debates. Metaphysics, to him, is the opposite: clockmakers dissecting concepts into smaller fragments, then arguing about whether the reassembled clock actually works.

The book opens with David Foster Wallace's famous fish story — the young fish who don't realize they're swimming in water. Readers familiar with Wallace's This Is Water speech recognize the point: metaphysics asks absurd questions not because they're absurd, but because we're so immersed in reality we forget to question it. The authors lean into this, addressing the "hostile attitude" many philosophers have toward metaphysics — Carnap dismissed metaphysicians as "musicians without musical ability."

"What the hell is water?"

But Matthias spots a warning sign early. The authors promise chapter-opening stories featuring Alice, Bob, Giggino, and Giggina — cutesy dialogues meant to introduce metaphysical concepts. Andreas Matthias writes, "These cutesy topic introductions can quickly become tedious and come across as patronising." He wonders who the intended reader is: someone buying a Springer volume called Contemporary Metaphysics probably doesn't need cartoonish intros. Infinite Jest fans might recall Wallace's own struggle with balancing accessibility and depth — the book's famous difficulty wasn't accidental.

The Price Problem

Before diving into content, Matthias stops at the price tag: $99.99 hardcover, $79.20 Kindle. Andreas Matthias writes, "These prices are unscrupulous and deplorable, especially for an ebook that has near zero production and distribution costs." He argues academic publishing is "fundamentally broken" — universities pay inflated prices with public funds that should educate young people, while authors get nothing. As Andreas Matthias puts it, "asking for a hundred bucks for a book that was acquired for free, likely edited by AI, and published at no cost is fundamentally immoral."

Critics might note this critique, while valid, distracts from evaluating the book's actual content. A cheap book can be bad; an expensive one can be good. Price and quality aren't necessarily linked.

God Without Context

Matthias cheats his beginner stance here — he's taught philosophy of religion. The God chapter opens with Alice and Bob under the stars. Alice argues the cosmos must have meaning; Bob stays rational. Then: Alice hugs Bob a little tighter. "It's a little chilly now," she replies and smiles. Bob forgets for a moment the things he has talked about with Alice, and realises just how beautiful she is.

Matthias doesn't let this pass. Andreas Matthias writes, "a thank you to the authors for reducing Alice to her physical appearance." Her intellectual arguments fade; her beauty matters. He notes this is an Italian book, but 21st-century readers expect better.

The ontological argument gets one page. The modal version presented is:

  • Necessarily, if God exists, then God necessarily exists.
  • It is possible that God exists.
  • Therefore God necessarily exists.

The proof uses possible worlds semantics — if God exists in any possible world, and God's existence is necessary, then God exists in all worlds including ours. Readers who studied the companion deep dive on modality might follow this. But Matthias argues the book doesn't explain the concepts enough. Andreas Matthias writes, "they don't really engage with the argument itself very much." One page for advantages, one page for Kant's criticism — enough to feel you've heard it, not enough to evaluate it.

The cosmological argument gets 17 lines. Russell's view — "the universe is just there and that is all" — gets a mention but no development.

Critics might argue beginners need overview, not depth. But Matthias's point is sharper: the book presents advanced versions of arguments without the scaffolding to understand them. It's neither beginner-friendly nor expert-satisfying.

Bottom Line

Contemporary Metaphysics promises accessibility but delivers neither clarity nor depth. Matthias's student-review approach exposes the gap: the book assumes knowledge it doesn't provide, uses pedagogical devices that patronize, and charges academic prices for AI-era production. Andreas Matthias writes, "the execution is unclear about who the ideal reader is — and will really satisfy nobody." For readers wanting metaphysics without the water analogy, this isn't it.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

Sources

Contemporary metaphysics (2026) #401

by Andreas Matthias · Daily Philosophy · Read full article

Carrara, M., De Florio, C., Lando, G., & Morato, V. (2026). Contemporary Metaphysics. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 289 pages, 92.05 Euro, 99.99 USD (hardcover); 79.20 USD (Kindle).

An interesting idea and a great table of contents, but the execution is unclear about who the ideal reader is — and will really satisfy nobody.

The Book.

There are fundamentally two kinds of reviews. Show me any book on the philosophy of AI, or love, or happiness, and I’ll tell you where the author went wrong, where he cut corners, and where his explanations shine. That’s me as an expert, reading a book and giving my informed opinion. This kind of review can be useful but one thing it cannot do: it can never approach a book in quite the same way as the book’s intended audience. The reviewer’s perspective is irrevocably tainted by their knowledge of the topic. But then, there is also the other kind of review — one where the reviewer is part of the audience for the book. Where they are not an expert, but a learner, not looking to find flaws in the book, but to learn from it. And this is how I will approach this review today.

I know next to nothing about metaphysics. Sure, I’ve studied a few courses many decades ago, when telephones stopped working when you tried to pull them out of the wall, and when we listened to music on cassettes that would melt in the sun and require delicate surgery to restore the flimsy tape into a new shell. But I’ve long ago forgotten all of that. By my own constitution, I have an intense dislike of metaphysics as a topic. I’ve always been joking that I’m one of those people who philosophise with a hammer rather than with a scalpel. I’m drawn to bold statements, broad, sweeping debates and daring claims. Metaphysics always seemed to me to be just the opposite: a discipline where for a hundred years or so people have been making smaller and smaller distinctions, taking apart concepts and terms with the infinite patience of a clock-maker, and then trying to put everything back together again. The winner is the one who manages to put the thing back together so that it actually works — but I never saw anyone succeed at this game — which just prompts another faction to engage with even more intricate ...